^[^ if IN THE HIGH CQURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITIONNO. 4s" ^4^ / 2004 PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: c^X^l •'AC-.- ^yy ^y' ^^ / ^y ^y ';'•'. ^;.-'1 -.',.-, *• ^""" ^- •^~':s\ 'j^^ '•/v^>—-^/t~'/ •^^^./' '"-'<^.~-»l-,^—'.;:">'"' Smt. K. Adilaxmi Rao, W/o ^ Shri K.S.R.Rao aged about 37 years, Occupation- Auxiliary Nursing-Midwife, R/o Gandhi Nagar Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh VERSUS 1. StateofChhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department ofGeneral Administration, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. StateofCUhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department ofHealtfa, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3. TheDirector J?.irectorate,Department of Health Services , District Raipur Raipur (C.G.) 4. The ChiefMedical Offieer Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpiir, District Bastar (C.G.) 5. TheBlockMedicalOfficer Primary Health Center, Naugoor, District Bastar (C.G.) 6. SmtP.Banik M..P.H.W.(A.N.M.) Primary Health Center Asna, Block Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.) ' 7. Smt. Prabha Joshi M..P.H.W.CA.N.M.) Primary Health Center Asna, Block Jagdalpiir District Bastar (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUENCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. PROHIBTK)N. CERTIORARI. AND ANY OTHER WRITS. DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR W.P. No. 4524 of 2004 Petifener Smt. K. Aditaxmi Rao Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & othere SB: Hon'bte Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Shri Aiok Devangan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Utkarsh Ve Verma, DepufyGovt. Advocate for the raspondsnte/SSate. ORDER (Passed on ttiis 23rd day of February, 2007) The foiio'A'ing ordsr of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihofrs, J. 1. The petitioner while working as Auxiisary Nureing Midwife m Sub Heaift Center, Asna, B!ock - Jagdalpar was transferred to Bactekilepal, on the same terms and conditions vids impugned transfsr ordsr dated 9.11.2004 (Annexure P/6) wiSiin She same disfrict Jagdalpur. 2. This Court vide interim order dated 10.3.2005 steyed the effecS and operation ofthe impugned transferorder. 3. Be that as it may, with the passage of fime this pettion has b«»me infructuous as psriod of transfer is not applicabte forever. At ttiis point of time ttiere is no question to examine ths validity of the transfer order. However, the respondents are at iiberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the public snterest and adminisfrative exigency, •Aithout insisting on compiiance ofths impugned transfer order. 4. it is well sett!ed principte of !aw that transfer is an incident of service and it Is for the empioyer to decide as to where a particuiar officer/employee be posted keeping in view public interest as weii as administrative sxigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction So interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved maiafide, non-competence of auShorify passing the transfer and Sransfer ordsr not being in conformifr/ wiSh the "uiss and order reguiations. 5. In viev/ of the above, this petitfon stands dispossd of. No order as cosis." Ths!/'tir Sd/- satish K. Agnihotri Judge