y ^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W.P^NO. 2.6 4- /2005 PETITIONER ^^'^Tikaram Sahu S/o. Lakhan ^ B^. .^^^ ^y"" RESPONDENTS Prasad Sahu, Aged about 45 years, Assistant Teacher Govt. Girls Middle School Deverbija. Block Saja. Tahail Bemetara, Dist. Durg(C.G-) ifate of Chhattisgarh Thirough: Secretary School , Education Deptt. D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur ;:{C.G:.) . I • ^'2) CoIleGtor, Durg, Distt. Durg. ^Sf Utuler Secretary School EduGation Department Govt. of ChUattisgarh (C.G.)' WRIT PEH'ITION UNDERARTICI-E 226 /227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF'INDIA iBff'ff'— ^ Thakur 6WCOURTOFCHHATnSGARHATBILASPUR W.P.No. 264 of2005 Petitioner TiliaramSahu Versus Respondents StateofChhattisgarh&ottieis SB: Hon'bte Mr. Jusfee Safish K. Agnihotri, J Shri Vimatesh 8aj(»i,Advocatoforfte peCfioner. Shri ^ay Dwh/edi, Panei Lawyer fw &ie respondente. Oft D€R { Passed on fcis26ttl dayof February, 2007) TheNtovnng orderoflheCourt is passed t^Satish K, Agnlhofri, A I.Thepetitionerwhileworkingas/tesistantTeacherfnGovtGirisMiddte Sehool, Deverbjja, Block - Saja, Bemtera, Disfrict -Ourg was transfen-ed to Navagarh. Bemetera, onthe same terms andcbndifions wde impugned transfer order dated 21.9.2004 (Annexure P/1), within thesame district. 2. This Court wle mterim OK^ dated 1<P stay oy the impugned order, tiU^ n^j^Whearing. ^^rtue^ofthe i^^ orderthe petifionermustftave cohtinuedon Siesame place ofposfing. 3. Bethat as it may, with ttiepassage oftime this petffion has become infructuous as period of transfer is not applicable (brever. At ttiis point of time ftere is no question to examine thevaltdity of the tran^r order. However, e respondents are at liberty to pass approprtete orelerskeepJngi'nvfewthepUbiicinterestandadministrattveeM'geney, withoutinsistingon«»niplianc®<rfthein'iptWtedtrainsferwder.| 4. It is well settled principle of law that fransfer is an incidiBnt ofiservice and it is for the employer to deeide as to where a partfeular offieer/employee be pcsted keejMnfl in wew pubnc interest as wen as administrative eadgency. This Goyrt has limited jurisdietion to interfsTe in the transfer matter and ihis Court can jnterfere wily Irr the caseof proved malafide, non-Gonipetence <rf auSiority passing ttie ftan^er order and transfer order n<* being in conformity witti e rulw and F^uteSons. -. 5. tn view of the above, ttiis petitton stands dispi^ed <rf.No order as to coste. ' ^ -^^—.—- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge