BEFOPE THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRmUNAL z BENCH RMPUR 0.A No 2o1 ‘ Shr Avnash Kumar Lal S/o T V Lal ed 38 ears, Asst. Professor ; Ag v t R/o osabadi Kora 1 htish APPLICGANT : /o / « ’ H .(_" l 1 K b Chatg§z Vs. g 1. The State of chhattisgarh Through : Secretary Department of Hig 3&ucation D F S hawan,Rapur , Chhatisah g RESPODNTS: NE 2. The Addl. Secretary, Department of Higher Educaticn D K S Bhawan,Raipur Catigr hhtsah The Co1 mmis5oner, lct i auatl Dreorate o£ Hgher Econ Govt. Scce ollege ms aurhhttsh Capu Rln,calgar APPIC TION UND SECTION 19 OF AMINISTAE IN AT 1985 h B1 tgr 1en C L ER DRTIV TRBUAL C i~i§GH SQ’JRT §F Qd‘ H£T §§§§£Ei3 a? $§££$P§E E J. MR. SiaTiSH K. AGNEHDTPJ ¥ WRJT PE??T§GN {3.} NBA-32$ GF 20G£§ $hré Avinash Kumar La! Petéiianer Versus Resgondents : T§1e State a§ Chhai?isgarh and othef Presené: : Mr. Vinod §es§1mukh counseé fer the peiiti-oner. Mr. V.¥.S.Meorihy‘ Deputy Advecate Generai wiih Mr. May Dwivea‘i, Pane! Lawyer for €2he respondents/Siam. gRaEF: {Passeé an wg’ 9f 0c€eben 29%) 'fhe crz'ginai application was fiied befare ihe Siaée Administraiive "hiibunah Banch at Raipw. impugnéng the iranm‘er owe? dewA-d 24-9-2301 (Amexure An ai: Govemmeaf PG. Co§fe§$, Govemment Gmiega Bagbahara, 1), whereby the 9eiiiioney, who was wcrkmg on the posi of Assisiam ?rofessm’ Korba, was irans§ewed to the X Mahasamund. “P h. Whiie admittiEg the petitica, the Tr§bw2aL by iis ordei' datad 74-12-2004“ granted sfaz‘us qua with regard to i‘he posimg of the —2Q0‘i. Learned counse! for the §etitioner Submits that by viriua of ihe in‘ter3m order. pe'mioner as on 28—11 tha pei‘iiioner is contmuing an the same wace of postmg, ie... Government PG. Coliege, Korbe. .\ SWGLE BEWEH : HBL GN’ 3. As a matier of fact. the gaeiitiones’ has got ihe fma: reiief by way of mterim owe; and ’a‘ne petmcner has been ma the same piace §or more than fou? years. The pet§tionercou§d not continue at one piace forever. 4. H is we}! sewed prmcigie of iaw ihat transfer is ar: incideni of seMce and i? is far i‘ne employer to decide as to where a parkmula? officer/empioyee be posted keeping in View pubiic iniea’est as we}: as administrative exigency. This Court has iimiied juvieoimion u .t s‘ Lo imemre 4. v; with ihe transfer matiere am; ihie Couri can interfere oniy with the case m” peeved meie fide, non-eompe‘:ence of auihwiiy passing the ‘irenefei’ order arid transfer erder not being in conformity with the ruiee and reguiarions. in the facts and circumstances of the case. ii is noi neceeeary i0 examine \raiidity of i’ne iransi’er ereier a‘i {hie siege. However, the respondenis — authorities ere direcied not io insist on compiiance oi the impugned transfer order dated 24-§—209’l (Annexure A4}. 5. 'fhis pe‘titien has become infruetueus with the passage oi time. Aocordingiy. the petitien is dismissed as having beceme infractuous. However, the respendents — authorities are at iiberty to pass appropriate order for ,oosting the petitioner in pubiic interest and administrative exigenoy, in accordance wi’ih law. No order es to cost . Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri “i Judge ”ii. ,,,,,‘ Li t‘. Gopai