®THEH5GH_COtJRTQPjJUrDICATU]REAT^m^ WRIT PETXTIOM M>. ^-^ ^5> ^?OC^ UMeEB^ISICLE_g2&OPTHI_CO|ST|TUTlQMO.BL8¥Pia Amar Singh. %^:fei5r^. ^/Q S'fari. i^-atap Sixi^. ThaJtau, ^ed ahout 44 years,, OGexipati^n sarviee^ CMef E^emitCTe Offioer Jasipad Paaclsayat Udaipujr, r^o Bloek CQl<my Udaipiir Di.atri.et Sa'rguja (C.Q.) ^5rst$_^ 'SI^^ZS: 1. StateofCMiattlsgarh.tJhrou^i ^l 1. Secretery^ 'Oepa.rtraeat of Seheduto Tri'be and Scliedule Caste Q&velopixient^ DX.S^ Bhaw^aa Raipur^ IMatri^t ,'Reipixr CNbattisgarh 2. ?3eputy Seeretaiy^ Department ofSehedale Tribe ajs.d 8<?fo.e€lu!e Caate D^velop^ienty D..K.S.y Bhawan Raipiir, Diatriet Raipur Clxliatti^garh CoBectof Bai'gujay Di^ttiet S^rgiixja (CMxMtiag^rh) A-aei^tasit Commi^mo$3.ei% Tfifeal Dev^lopraeiit <» Sargiya, IM^tsict Sax'guja (Ciihattiagarli) Jila Panchayafc , Sargaja Amfoii^pur s tlxs'oiigh Cliief Executive Offiear, J^a Panaliayat, Sai'guja Ambil^apiu*^ District Sarguja (Clxhatti^garh) Dev Kiixnar Gupta^ agad aboiit 38 y^ira, Lec-turer^ Blocfc Education OiBcer (Iii Charge) UdaipuT^ DiMrict Bargiiia (CMiattlsgarfa) PA^ISyiABS-QSLTEtE'-QEmw^"^— - ^— HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petitiou No. 2513 of 2003 Petitioiier: Amsj- Smgh Thakxir Versus Respondents: State of Chhattisgarh & others to4. Ssn^e Bench; HonTsle Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Shri Suuiit Veraia, Advocate for the petltioner. Shri Paiikaj Shrivastava, Panel lawyer for the Respondents No. 1 None for respondents No, 5 ajid 6, ORAL ORDER { 8th Febmaiy, 2006) The follotving order ofthe Courtwas passed by Satish K. AgnihotrS, J. 1. The petitioner was workiag on fhe post ofChief Executive Officer, Ja<npad Pe^ichayal Udaipiir, District" Snrguja, Vide order dated 8.8.2003 (Annexiirc P/5) he was attached to the office ofthe Chief Execiitive Officer, Zila Panchayat - Sarguja (Ambikapzir). The prcsent petition isiipugns the order dated 8.8.2003 on the gromid that the petitioner is a regular Chief Executive Officer, as siich he caiinot be attached to the office of the other Chief Executive Officer, Zila Pmichayat. 2. This Court by mterim order dated 11.9.2003 stayed the impiigned order aad aUowecl the petitioner to.contiiiiie 011 the same place of posting, ifhe was not reMeved, 3, Learned coiinsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of fhis court's oi-der dated 11.9.2003, the petitioner has contuiued on the ssjiie old place of postmg aiid flie impugned order was never given effect to iii respect of the petitioner, The petitioner has been ^^ (5) graiited fiiial reUef by uiteriisi brder, The petitloner could not coutoiue at one place forever, 4, It is weU settled pmiciple of law that traiisfer is aa m.cideiit of service aiid it is for the employer to decide as to where a pej-ticular officer/eniployee be posted keepiag ui view piiblic iaterest as weU as adniiaistrative exigency, This Court has Uinited jurisdiction to iaterfere in. tlie traxisfer matter and fhis Coiirt can ititerfere only ia flie case of proved malafide, noD-competeiice of aiithority passuig fhe transfer order and traasfer order not beio.g ia conformity wifh the rules and rcgiilations, In the facts and circiiHistances of the case, it is uot necessar3^ to exaiiiiae vaUdity of fhe traasfer order at this stage, In the facts of fhe case, the respondeuts a-re directed iiot to iasist upon compUmice of the ioipzigned ti'aiisfer onler. 5. This petition has beconie iafnicttious wifh the passage of time, Accordiiigly the petition is dismissecl as having beconie infructuous. However, respondents/aufhorities are at Hberty to pass appropriate order for postiiig the petitiouer in. the piiblic interest and adniiaistrative exigeucy, ia accorda&ce with law, No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur