IN TEE EEGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH‘ AT JKBALPUR. 55 M.P. N0. ,7 if 7 ~ o 1992; f VVC \\ § riw‘xyv Petitioner :- ‘ Harbansh angh @akur, agea about 35 yrs )L g 5x ¢ s/o Shri Babulal $2ngh Thakur, ReVenue In specter, $ecia1 Area Development Authority Ratanpur m stt Bila$ur M. P. r/o Kareh ap araw Ratanpur Di stt Bilaspur M. P. -VersuS State of Madiya Pradeéi through the> Secretary N /\/f / ‘ wk Director %wn Awnistration (N$ar Pra§1ashan m10pal. / « / M/ r f / /PETITI0H 2‘ THE NSTITUTI UNDER mmE N OE mm 226 READ ‘ "““JE WITH T"L ‘227‘ "‘ 1 in|rrilLlLiggligglgglzwl\l|\| , i { éL HIGH COURT QF CHHATT!SGARH AT BILASPUR WP. No. 2599 of 1992 Patitioner Harbansh Singh Thakur Versus Respoadents State {)f Madhya Pradesh (116w Chhattiagarh) & others $3: Hon’ble Mr. Justice SatiSh K. Agnihtsti'i, J Shn' Bhaskar Pyasi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sushi} Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the iespond.ents/ State. O R D E R ( Pasge§ an this 19th (my 0f Febnim‘y, 2007) This fallowijig order 0f the Court is passed by gatish K. Agnihatri, J. .The petitioner while working as Revenue Inspector wae transferred from Rataapur to Kawardha vide impugned transfer order dated 25.7. 1992 (Annexure E). O[ . This Court vide interim order dated 8.8.1992 granted stay of the operation of the impugned transfer order. . It is well settled principle of law that transfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decide as to wheie a particular oriieerfemployee he yoeted keepmg in View public interest as weE as administrative exigenoy. This Court has limited jurisdiction to' interfere iil the transfer matter and this Coart owl imeifere oiily 1'11 the case of proved malafide, non- oompeteece of authority passiilg the transfer order and trajlsfer order not heing in conformity with the rides and regulations. Be that as it may, with the paseage of time this petition has eeeome infinetuous as period of transfer is not aoplicable forever. The respondents are at Ebert—y to pass aopropiiate orders keeoing in View the ou‘oiie interest and administxative emgency. In View of the ahove, this petition stands disposed. of. No order as to Costs. 7 Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge