•/•- ^ s> -rfc-. ^ \')> KV^ .s*1 BEFOBE HON'BLE STATE ABMIHISTa&TIVE, TRIKJH'&I, BEHGB AT RMP&R, CHaATTXSGSRH (^ ~P('\) '3 k ©rigiaal Appltcation .^ 'y\^_/2eoi' ~7~v Shiv Bhuwan Siagh, Soa of Shri Ran Bali Singfa, Iiab. TechraiciaEt, Govt. P.G.Cbllege, ©harampura,iTagdalpar (Chhattisgarh) Versus 1. /State o£ M.P. Througb Secretary,. tiigher Educatioa Department, Ministry of Higher Edueatioa, Mantralaya Vallabfa Bhawan, Efaopal. 2. S-bate of Chhattisgarh, Itirough Secretary, Edacpiti.on Department, . Haatralaya, D.K.S.Bhawan. Raipur, Chbattisgarh. 3 .y^ C&Bmissionef, Higher Edacat.ion, Satpads Hhawaa, Bbopal. 4^ PrJ.ncipal, Govt. Post Graduate Cbllege, Dfaarampara, Jagdalpar, Bastar (Chhattisgarh) ApplicadbitiS te...J2^57j.Of FfW fodsy S.'.6..'.0.1.. by ;/>r; .-:^?..'. 'rf^A.Ol Fci KS^WJU, M. P. Stste A'B'.-n. Tribamal, RAifUR. Hon-Applicants APPLXCATIOW (JNBER SECTION 19 OF ADHI.iaSTRATI-VE TaiBUSM, ACa' 19858 ' ^ • • • : ' : • •• • ! .- l.< ^RTICO-IARS OE THB APPI,ie&NT$ ' &.s above. ^r HK3H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.ffi) No.38Q2^20 Petitioner Shiv Bhuwan Singh Vereus Respondents StateofM.P.OSIowC.G.)&others SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Shri Anupam Dubey, Advocate for the pefitioner. V. V. S. Murthy, Deputy Advocate General with Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State. ORDER (Passed on this 9th day of Mareh, 2007) The ft>llowing order of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner while working as Lab Technician at Rewa was transferred to Govt. P.G. College, Dharampura, Jagdalpur, on the same terms and conditions, vide order dated 29.5.2000 (Annexure A/1), on his own request. After joining of the petitioner from Rewa to Jagdalpur, the transfer order dated 29.5.2000 was cancelled vide impugned order dated 15.9.2000 (Annexure A/5). 2. Th®Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Raipur vkle interim order dated 14.6.2001 directed to mairTtain status quo in regard to the position of the petitioner as it was prevailing on 8.6.2001. By wtue of tte interim order the petitioner is working at ttie original place of posUng. 3. Be that as it may, vwth the passage of flme this petidon has become infruchious as period of transfer is not appticable forever. At OTs point of time there is no question to examine the validity of the transfer order. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate orclers keeping in view the public interest and administrative exigency, without insisSng on compfiance of the impugned transfer order. 4. lt is well settled principle of law that fransfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular officer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved matafide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. 5. In view ofthe above, this pefition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge