ty""^^vSif^-^Fsasas-^ r- /i BEFORE THE M.P. STATEADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH RAIPUR APPLICANT NON-APPLICANT O.A.NO. ^ /2001 ,/.<>-^)/y2<i^'?^ Smt. Manjula Gupta WifeofShriS.K.Gupta Assistant Professor Deptt. of Botany Govt. College, Bhilai -3 Distt. Durg VERSUS 1. StateofC.G. through the Secretary Department of Higher Education Govt. ofChhattisgarh, D.KS.Bhavan, Raipur 2. Principal Govt. College Bhilai (3) Durg (C.G.) ORIGINALAPPLICATION UNDERSECTION 190FTHEM.P. STATE ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNALACT. 1985 ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT B3LASPUR SSNGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SVSR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI. J. Petstloner Resoondents WRiT PETITION (S.) N0.3897 OF 2005 Smt. Manjuia Gupta versus State ofC.G.and another Present : Vr. Maneesh Sharma, counsei for the petitioner. Mr. V.V<S.Mdorthy, Deputy Advocate Generai with Nr. Ajay Dwivedi, Pane! Lawyerforthe respondents/State. (Passed on 12m of October, 2006) The origina) appiication was fiied before the State Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Raipur, impugning the transfer order dated 24-9-2001 (Annexure A-1), whereby the petitloner, who was working on the post of Assistant Professor at Governrnent College. Bhilai-3, DJstrict Durg, was transferred to ths Government Coiiege, Dhamdha, District Durg. 2. After admitting the petltion on 6-10-2001, the Tribunal, by its order dated 12-10-2001, granted status quo with regard to the posting of the petitioner as on 28-9-2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of the interim order, the petltjoner is continulng on the same place of posting. i.e., Government Coliege, Bhjlai-3, Distrlct Durg. ,y- ^ 3. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has got the finai relief by way of interim order and the petitloner has been on thesame piace for aboutfive years. The petitioner couid notcontinue at one piacs forever. 4. it is weil settled principle of iaw that transfer is an incident of ser^ice and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular officer/employee be posted keeping in view public interest as we!i as administrative exigency. This Court has iimited jurisdlction to interfere with the transfer matters and this Court can interfere only with the case of proved mals flde. non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and •^ reguiations, In the facts and circumstances of the case, It is not necessary to examine validity of the transfer order at this stage. However, the respondents - authorities ars directed not to insist on compiiance of the impugned transfer order dated 24-9-2001 (Annexure A-1). 5. This petition has become infructuous with the passage of timQ. Accordingiy, the petition Is dlsmissed as having become infructuous. However, the respondents - authorities are at liberty to pass appropriate order for posting the petltloner in public interest and administrative exigency, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Gopai