Singie Bench H" - w (9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO. '/ ‘ggq‘ OF 2004 PETITIONER: /SMT MANJULA JHA WIFE OF SHRI RAM VILAS JHA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDENT OF GEEDAM ROAD, JAGEALPUR, DISTRICT’ 'BASTAR (C.G.) Versu/s RESPONDENTS / STATE OF CHHATISGAIIH, } THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEVELOPMENT\OF SCHEDULED CAST'ES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES, D.K.S. BHAWAN, RAIPUR (c.G.) I ,2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMF‘NT ‘OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES, RAIPUR. 3. MATA RUKMANI SEVA SANSTHA, / THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DIMRAPAL, DISTRICT BASTAR. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRITS\ IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, 'CERTORARI AND [OR ORDERISI AND [OR DIRECTION1Sl IN THE .NATURE OF WRITS 1. Particulars of the petitioner: — 1 As per the cause title. ' ‘ . Particulars of the res ondentsi As ’per the cause titlea A N I/I HIGH COURT OF CHHAT'HSGARH AT BILA$PUR SINGLE BENGH : HON’BLE MR. SKYISH K. AGMHOTW J. ' WRIT PETlTiON NO.4837 OF 2994 Petitioner : Smt. Mang‘uEa Jha veTSUS Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and others Present : Mr. B.P.Sharma, ccunsei for the petitioner. Mr. Utkarsh Verma, Deputy Government Advocate for the Sme/respondenis No 1 and 2 Mr Prafuil Bharat counsel for resoondent No 3 Mr B D Guru counsel forthe Intervener ORDER {Passed on 22nd Day of February, 2007) The petitroner rs workmg as Assrstant Teacher rn the establishment of respondent No 3 The petrtroner was transferred from , Kanya Aashram, Chhmdgarh to Kenya Aashram, Bastar, vide order dated 23-7-2004 (P-2). The petitioner joined the new piece of posting! but, thereafter, the transfer of the petitioner has been cancetled vide order dated 30-1 1-2004 (re—4). 2. This Court, vide interim order dated 18—1-2005, directed that the order of canceiiation dated 30-1 1-2004 (R4) shat! not be given effect tiii the next date of hearing and the petitioner shali be aiiowed to continue in Kenya Aashram, Baetar, in case she has already joined at Bastar. /:\ ’ 3. Be that as it may, with the passage of time, this petition has become infructuous as period of transfer is not applicabie forever. At this point of time, there is no question to examine the validity of the impugned transfei' order. However, the respondents are at Iiberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in View the pubiic interest and administrative exigency, without insisting on compiiance of the impugned transfer order. yjt~W . 4. it is weii settied principle of law that transfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decided as to where a particular ofhcerlemployee 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 male tide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and reguiations. 5. ln view of the above! the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. /////i l Sd/— f ‘ e- Satish K. Agnihotri ‘ ' Judge