r BEFORE THE M.P. STATEADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH RAIPUR O.A. N0. _/2ooi ^^y '3'/?%/o Smt. Alpana Dubey Assistant Professor Deptt. of Commerce Govt. Girls Coilege, Durg VERSUS 1. StateofC.G. through the Secretary Department of Higher Education Govt. of Chhattisgarh, D.KS.Bhavan, Raipur 2. Principal Govt. Girls College, Durg (C.G.) OR1GINALAPPLICATION UNDERSECTION 190FTHEM.P. STATE ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNALACT, 1985 ——___\.. Petitionai versus Smt. Aipana Dubey Stete of C.G. and another Present Mr. W.r. V.V. Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer forthe respondents/'State. sesh Sharma, counsel for the petiiioner. S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate Genera! with (Passed on 12tn of October, 2006) The origina! appiteation was filed before the State Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Rsipur, impugn'.ng the trsnsfer order dated 24-9-2001 (Annexure A-1), whereby the petitioner, who was working on the post of Assistant "Professor at Governrnent GSrls CoiSege, Durg, was transfsrred to the Government College, Arjunda, District Durg. 2. After admitting the pstition on 6-10-2001, the Trlbunal. by itsord.sr dated 12-10-2001, granted sfafus quo with regard to the tina of ths Detltioner as on 29-9-2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of the interim order, the petitioner is continuing on the same place of postsng, Le., Government Giris 3. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has got the finai relief by wey of interim order and the petitloner has been on the same piacs for about five ysars. The^etitionsr couid not continus at one place forever. 4- It is weil settied principle of !aw that transfer is an Incident of ssrvice snd B-is fer the employer to declde as ts whers a particuiar officer/empioyse be posted keeping in view public intersst as weil as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfsrs with the transfer matters and this Court can intsrfsre on!y 'A'ith the case of proved ma/a ffcfe, non-competence of authority passing the transfer ordsr and transfer order not being in conformifr/ with the ruies and reguiations. In the facts and circumstances of the case, St is not necessar/ to examlne validity of the transfer order at this stage. However, the respondents - authorities are directed not to insist on compliance of the impugned transfsr order datsd 24-9-2001 (Annaxure A-1). 5. This petition has become infructuous v/ith the passage.of time. Accordlngiy, the petition is dismissed as having becoms infructuous. However, the respondenfs - authorities are at liberty to pass appropriate order for posting the petitioner in public interest and administrative sxigency, in accordance with iaw. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. AgDihottl Judge