IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT yILASWR: / wmr PETITION No. 3&8 I200: “" small" Kumar Shanna, S/o Dr I D shama, aged 37 yen: Occupation- - Gove ent Samoa presently working as Chief Executwe 0mm, Itnpid a Panchayat Abhanput District Rupur x (C G ), R10 Abhanput, District Kanpur (C G) -VERSUS- Ff State of Chhtmsgath though Secretary, Depurtment of Panchayat and Rural D evelopment, D .K.S.Bhnvan, Raipur (C.G.) ‘ 2. D evelopment Commissmnar, Gove ant of Chhattrsguh, Raipur (C G ) Chief Executive omcer, lilo Panchaynt, Raipur (C.G.). L’ETITIONER RESPONDENTS : l. 4. Collector, Raipur (C.G.). z 5; Collector, Korba (C.G.). WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226 27 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUH‘ABLE WRIT, ORDERS OR DIRECTION. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 5 {1 Writ Petiiion No. 3208 of 2003 Petitioner: " Shishir Knmar Shanna Versus Respondents: State of Chhattisgarh & others Singie Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satlsh K. Aymoui. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel lawyer for the Res ' {ents/ State. ORAL ORDER - ( 22nd February, 2006) The following order of the Court was passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner was working on the post of Chief Executive O$cer, danpad Panchayat-Abhanpur, District-Raipur. Vide impugned onler dated 6.10.2003 (Annexule P/7) he was tansferred to the post of Assistant Project Ohicer, Zila Panchayat —- Korba on the ground of administxative exigency. The petitioner has hied this petition impugm'ng the transfer onder dated 6.10.2003 on the ground of hequent hansfers. '2. This Court by interim order dated 15.11.2003 stayed the opelation of the impugned order dated 6.10.2003 until further orders. 3. Learned counsel for the pen'tioner submits that by virtue of this court’s cider dated 15.11.2003, the petitioner has conn'nued on the same old place of posting and the impugned order was never given eEect to in respect of the petitioner. The petitioner has been granted nnal relief by interim oniet. p 51 4. It is well settled principle of law that transfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular o$cerlemployee be posted keeping in View public interest as well as administrative exigency. ThisCourt has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved malafide, non-competence of authority passing the hansfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulaltp'ns. The a petitioner] employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place, forever, by Court orders. At this stage, it is not necessaly to examine validity of the transfer order at this stage. In the facts of the case, the respondents are directed not to insist upon compliance of the impugned transfer order. . This peh'tion has become inhuctuous with the passage of time. Accordingly the petition is dismissed as having become inn'uctuous. However, respondents/authorities are at liberty to pass appropriate order for posting the petitioner in the public interest and administxau‘ve exigency, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. J Sd/— Judge i ,1 1 i . i t . Saesh K. Agnihot'r’i i