BEFORE THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR Hm — o.A~. No. gg (2001 w f/ZX) f 71(0)./ by sim'- M.:..$..§M/..'i:m.m~ APPLICANT - 1%rmw$Mm MOHAN RAJ BA‘ Ii ’S/O Shri M.K Basuikf‘ P. Etate Am. Tribunal, RAIPUR. Range Officer. Special Duty Easter (Territorial) Easter (C.G.) VERSUS NON APPLICANT o. ,1 . STATE 'OF C .G. Through Secretary, Department of Forest, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur C.G. Conservator Of Forest Jagdalpur Circle Jagdalpur (C.G.) ORIGINAL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE M.P. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT 1985 im—wa~r @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUE WP. (S) No. 3513 of 2005 Petitioner Mohan Raj Basu Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & ancther SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J y). go 0 R D E R (Passed on this 9m day of March, 2007) The petitioner while working as Range Officer, Special Duty. Easter was transferred to Narangi Area, on the same terms and conditions‘ vide order dated 4.92000 (Annexure N1). The Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Raipur vide interim order dated 23.1 .2001 directed to maintain status quo in regard to the position of the petitioner as it was prevailing on 22.1 .2001. By virtue of the interim order the petitioner is continuing at the original place of posting. Be that as it may, with the passage of time this petition has become infructuous as period of transfer is not applicable forever. At this point of time there is no question to examine the vaiidity of the transfer order. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the public interest and administrative exigency, without insisting on compiiance of the impugned transfer order. lt is well settled principle of law that transfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular ofhcer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited iurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved malatide. non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations.‘ ln view of the above, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Thakur Sdj- ‘ Satish K. Agnihotri f i ' Judge Shri Manish $harma , Advocate for the petitioner. V. V. S. Murthy, Deputy Advocate General with Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents/$tate. The foiiowing order of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1.