ORIGINAL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE M.P. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT, 1985 BEFORE THE M.P. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH RAIPUR /LL/a? / 2/ V) —>g>->{/r~w”" O.A. NO. /2001 APPLICANT : Smt. Sanju Shrivastava, W/O Shri Chandrahas Shrivastava Asstt. Teacher, Govt. Adarsh Purva Madhyamik Kanya Shala, Durg Distt. Durg VERSUS NON-APPLICANT : l. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Department of School Education D.K.S. Bhavan Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education Officer Durg 3. Principal, Govt.>Adarsh Purva Madhyamik Kanya Shala, Durg SB: Hcn'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Shri Manish Sharma , Advocate for the petitioner. V. V. S. Murthy, Deputy Advocate General with Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the vespondentslState. O R D E R (Passed on this 9‘" day of March. 2007) The foltowing order of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1.' The petitioner while working as Assistant Teacher in Middle School, Durg was transferred to Middle School‘ Camp i. Bhilai. on the same terms and conditions, vide order dated 6.9.2001 (Annexure N1). 2. The Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Raipur vide interim order dated 11.9.2001 directed to maintain status quo in regard to the position of the petitioner as it was prevailing on 10.9.2001. By virtue of the interim order the petitioner is continuing at the original place of posting. 3. Be that as it may, with the passage of time this petition has become infructucus as period of transfer is not applicable forever. At this point of time there is no question to examine the validity of the transfer order. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the public interest and administrative exigency. without insisting on compliance of the impugned transfer order. 4. it is well settled principie'of law that transfer is an incident of service and it is tor the employer to decide as to where a particular ofhcerlemployee be posted. keeping in view public interest as we“ as administrative exigency. This Court has limited iurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only inthe case of proved malat‘rde, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. 5. ln View of the above. this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. xmhww . --—> 5w- Thakur r Satish K. Agnihotri .i." Judge l HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. (S) No. 3771 cf 2005 ’ w Petitioner Smt. Saniu Shrivastava Versus Respondems State of Chhattisgarh & others