Sim} @ . r n w (i? aggf} COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHA’FTISGARH AT BILASPI H? Vv’.P.NO. r75] 2095 : /S.S.Sinha S/o Lat‘e Shri R.B:S1;nh&, 0/ ............. o ' g/k Am ‘ Occupation ed about 44 Sub years, Engineer in PfesemwEu' (Egg; ........... I. f 0 )e Qalag 0/ Pi ......... C/o Water Government M.R.P.W.M. Resourcers of Sub Chhattisgarh Department, Division "‘22 No.2 Bhatgaon, Tahsil Kurud Dist : Dhamtari—(C.G.) Versus : /1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretaiy Dept. of Water Resources, Mantralaya, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Dist : Raipur~(C.G.) /2. The Engineer in Chief, Dept of Water Resources, Government of Chhattisgarh, Civil Line, Raipur—(C.G.) /3. The Chief Engineer, Mahanadi River Project, Dept, of Water Resources, Government of Chhattisgarh, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Raipur, Dist : Raipur~(C.G.) //4. The xecutive Engineer, M.R.P.Division No.2, Dept. of Water Resources, Government of Chhattisgarh, Rudri, Dist : Dharntali—(C.G.) ER ARTICLE 226 7227 OF THE CONSTITUTION SSUANCE OF WRITIWRITS IN THE NATURE OF ERTIORARY AND z OR ORDERISI AND [OR ION {Si IN THE NATURE OF WRITS IN THE HIGH Petitioner 1 (2 . w Resgondents E WRIT PETITION UND OF INDIA FOR THE I MANDAMUS[ C DIRECT Q HEGH COURT GF JUDICATURE CEIHATTISGARH: BILASPUR S’mgle gench: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agihotri, J. W. P. No. 175 OF 2005 S‘S. Sinha Petitioner Versus RespondcntS State (3f Chhattisgarh :35 othsrs. Present: None appears for the petitioner. Shri V.V. S. Moorfhy, Dy. Advocate General with Smt. Anju Abuja, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. Q R D E R {10th 0ctober, 2006) In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned transfer order dated 11. 11.2004 (Annexure P/ 1) submitting that the examinations of his children were due. Therefore, he should not be disturbed till May, 2005. 2. This Court, by order dated 24.3.2005, passed the interim order to maintain status quo as obtained on that day i.e. 24.3.2005. However, while granting status quo, it was made c1ear~that the said this order of stay shall not continue beyond the month of May, 2005. 3. It 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 offlcer/employee be posted keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer " v“ ’ - _\\3 @ (z) matter and This Court can intsifers only in the case 0f proved malajide, non-competence of authority passixlg th€ transfer onier and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and Vregulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place, forever, by Coult ordersV At this stage, it is not necessaxy to examine validity of the transfer order at this stage. In the facts of the case, the respondents are directed not to insist upon compliance of the impugned transfer order. In View of the averments made in the writ petition, this peiirion is dismissed. No order as to costs. Satish K. Agnihatril. Judge x3 ' al“(