t ^PAj^l^^ BEFORE THE HON»BLEMP ADMlHlSTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. JABALPUR IN THE MATTER OF ANANDMASIH SUB ESVISIONAL MA.GISTRATE (somr COLLECTOR), KUNKURI EXST-JASHPUR. Q.A. N0 ^ ^ / 2W2 APPLSCANT VERSUS 1. STATE OF CHHATHSGARH THROUGH SECRETARY mPARTK/lENT OF GENERAL AH^INISTRATION, MANTRALAY D.K.S. BHAWAN RAIPUR C.G. Z OOLLECTOR, DtST-JASHPlJR. NONAPLICANT APPLICATION U/S 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT 1985. .^_. ^T^ ^o^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI. J, WRIT PETITION (Sl N0. 2184 OF 2005 Petitioner : Anand Masih Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and another Present : None appears for the petitioner. Mr. V.V.S. Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General with Mrs. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govemment Advocate for the State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on 9th Day of March, 2007) The petjtioner, while working as Joint ColJector, Jashpur was transferred to Kawardha on the same terms and condjtions, vjde impugned transfer order datect 6-8-2002 (AnnexureA-1). 2. The Madhya PracSesh Administratjve Tribunal, Jabalpur, vide interim order dated 30-10-2CX32, granted stey of the impugned transfer order dated 6-8-2002 (Annexure A-1). 3. Be that as it may, with the passage of time, this petition has become infructuous as period of transfer is not applicable forever. At this point of time, there is no question to examine the validity of the impugned transfer order. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping jn view the public interest and administrative exigency, without jnsisting on compliance of the impugned transfer order. 4. It is well settled prindple of law that transfer js an incident of service and jt is for the employer to decided as to where a particular officer/employee be posted keeping sn view pubjjc interest as wed as admjnistrative exigency. This Court has timjted jurisdiction to interfere in <^ Subhash the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved mala fide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity wjth the rules and regulations. 5. fn view of the above, this petition stands disposed of. No order astocosts. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^lt-