m ISK ^.r. * iMS'i;:: ifs! ^ (^ IN THE fflGH COURT OF IUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH PETITIONER W.P.NO. ^f-T3o :/2004 iwal S/o. Raxnhari Agrawral, Aged about 52 years, R/o. Opp7 Agraw:al Dharamshala, Akaltara, Distt Janjgu'-Chaaipa (CMtiattisgarh) RESPONDtNTS ^l] eis* VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Revenue Department MaHtraIaya, D.K.S. Bhawaii, Raipur (C.G.) CoUector Mahasamuiid, Distt Mahasamimd (C.G.) CoUectorBastar,Distt.Bastar(C.G.) CQBuiussioner Land Record, Raipur Distl..Ra.ipur(CG-) WRTTPETTTIQN UNDER ARTICLE 226027 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA tilUUI HKSHCOURTOFCHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P;No.4730<rf2iD0.4 Petitioner Umataint^jrawal Versus Respondents StateofChhattisgarh&others SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Safish K. Agnjhotri, J Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate forthepetjfioner. — Shri Ajay Dwwedi, Panel Lawysr for the respondente/State. ORDER (Passed on this 23ni day of February, 2007) The foitovflngorder of the Coyrt is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitksner while woridr^ as Assistant Superintendent fn Revenue Deparbnent at Mahasamund was transfsrred to Baster, or, the same terms and conditions vide impugned transfer order dated 9.11.2004 (Annexure P/2). 2. This Court vide interim order dated 3.1.2005 directed that not to relieve fche petitloner, ifthe pefitjoner was not already relieved. 3. Be fiiat as it may, wth the passage^time ttiis petition has become infructuous as period oftransfsr is notapplicabls forever. Atttis point of time.there is no question to examine the TOlidity of ttietran^sr order. However, the respisndente are at liberty to pass af^ropriats orders keeping in view the public intersst and admintstrath/eexigency, without jnsisting on compllance of theearlier transfer orcler. 4. It is well setUed principle of law that fransfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to dscide as to whers a particular ofRcer/empioyee be posted keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has iimited jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved maiafide, non-competence of authorfty passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and rsgulattons. 5. In view ofthe above, this petibon stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Thakur Sd/- Satish I^. Agnihotri Judge