insie i5e 2N SHE H3BH e8B8T Bp 3VmCM53SE AT BIIASHJR (CG) WEIT PBTS23:eN BO. 4 5 ~7 ^' SP 200- BB'CWESS snt? W.ita M»t»»<aely'o ffil-t Saxir, ageS abeut: 26 years» Besident sf Ha3?afnun3a iteFfi (Hegr Hisslon getwol ) •J^rdalparil^^stiSi'c'b Jagdalpur (@@). ^•s^;^- ^%^-"" PEEEinGNER s^v:<y A N S l. aae state of C3-d»a-fctisgalh, tiaroagh tiie gBers-tary, Rtbla.e Haalth and Baglneeeing BsPartnient/Han-tralay &.K,S. Buj.lai.ng, Kaipur (G®). 2. she secretary,1 SePa.cal Adalni stiratdkon laeparttient, D.K.is.Bulldlng, Mantralay 7 Rslpur (OS). 3. Ghlef MeaiGal an3 Health Offleer, At JagSalpasCf lAs'kri.e'b Bastar (03) • 4* 'filoels Medlcal ©fflcer>' E'rimary Hteal'tA cenlye R»ndagaBn> Bas'tar ffistriLc't Sas-bar (OG). RBSFaNQEBTs wr'r E'ETlTiGBr VBBES WssebSs ssf!/22j_w _y'SE^eSii:s^^iTOMiM 'SSlME&SMSSMM^SS- •^•'SS^SSPSIKTE WBZS( S) ®w Niwamvs. @ERTIC5RaBt MB'^SR^ ORE®E(s)/B3:R^^W"Cs5^ ^ ^'1 'y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR W.P. No. 4574 of 2004 Stnt. Anita Khande Petitioner Versus Respondents The State of Chhathsgarh & others SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnlhotri, J 1. 3. Shri Virendra Sharma, Advocate forthe pentioner. lyiiss Deepaii Pandey, Panel Lawyer for ths respondente/Stete. ORDER ( Passed on ihis 23 day of February, 2007) Ths foilowing ordsr of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihob-1, J. The petitioner white working as Muitipurpose Woman HeaiSh Associate in Primary' Heaith Center, Nangur, Biock Jagdalpur was transfsrred to Kondagaon, on She same terms and conditions vicie impugned transfer ordsr dated 9.11.2004 (Annexure P/1) v/ithin the same district Jagdaipur. This Court vide interim order dated 13.4.2005 directed that not to relieve ths petitioner, if the peSttoner was not already reiievsd. Bs that as it may, with the passage of tims this petition has become jnfrucfaious a3 period of transfer is not appiicabte forevsr. At C'.is point of Sime there is no question tc examine the validity of fche transfer order. Hov/ever, Sie respondente are at liberty to pass appropriate ordere keeping in view the publsc interest and adminisSrativs exigency, without insisSir,g on compliance ofthe impugned transfer order. It is wsll seffled principie of iaw that transfer is an incident of ssrvice and iS is for She emptoyer to decide as to whsre a patticular ofRcer/employee be posted keeping in view public intersst as we!I as administrative exigency. This Coiut has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere oniy In the case of provsd ,v,a!afids. non-compstence of authority passing e transfer ordsr and transfer order not being in conformJiy •A'iits the rules and regutetions. !n vfew of the above, this peStion stands disposed of. No order as to 5. costs Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge