HSGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR "^. W.P.rS) No. 3820 of 2005 Petltioner Versus Respondente 1. 2. M. K. Yadav, age -—years.S/o Shri Late Anand Ram Yadav, Asoietant Teacher, Schedu!ed Caste Welfare Govt. Boyas Frimary Schoot, Ambagarh Chowki, Dlstrlct- Rajnandgaon (Chhafflsgarh) State of Chhattisgarh. Through Secretary\ Scheduied Caste and Scheduled Tribe and other backward ciasses WsSfars Department. D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). CoStector, Qfficer of the Co{lector, Rajnandgaon. ScheduSed Caste and Schedufed Tribe and other Backward Classss Weifare, Rsjnanctgaon (Chhattisgam). SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justlce Satlsh K. Agnjhotn, J Shri Y. C. Sharma, Advocaio for tho poiitionor. -Sunlta Jain, Panel lawyer for the respondents/State. O R DE R ( Passed on thls 13tt day of Mareh, 2007) The foISowing order ofthe Court is by Satish K. Agnihotri. J. 1. The petltioner whISe working as Assistant Teacher at ScheduSed Caste Govt. Boys Primar^ School, Ambagarh Chov/ki, Dlstrlct- Ra|nandgaon v/as transferred to Pnmary SchooS, Mohad, on the same terms and condltsons, vtde impugned order dated 10.9.2001 (Annexure A/'1). 2. The Madhya Pradesh Administratjve Tribunat at Raipur vide Intertm order 26.9.2001 dlrected to maintain status quo in to the position of the petitjoner as was prsvaiijng on 19.9.2001. By virtue ofthe interim ordsr the petttloner Is continuing at the Grigina! pSace of postlng. 3. Be that as It may, wsth the passage of time this petitjon has become infructuous as period of transfer rs not applicabSe forever. At this point of time there Is no question to examine the vaSidity of the transfsr order. However, the respondents are at llberty to pass appropriate orders keeping In vtew the pubtlc snterest and adminlstratjve exigency, 'Aithout jnsistjng on compSiance of the impugned transfer order^ ^: 1 f-Th.akur 3. Be that as it may, Vv'tth the of tlms thls pstitSon has become infructuous as of transfer ss not appjicable forever. At this point of tlme Is no question to examlrie the valjdity of the transfer order. However, the respondente are at itberty tc appropriate jn view the jnterest and admtnlstratjve exlgency, wlthout jnsistlng on compSiance ofthe impugneci order. 4. ?t is well principle of law that transfer js an incldent of serv'lce and jt Is for the empioyer to as to a particular officer/employee be posted. jn vlev/ public as we!i as exigency. This Court has iimjted jurisdictlon to interfere in the -and this Court can interfere only jn the case of malafide, non-competence of authority passlng the transfer and transfer order not being in conformtfr/ with the ruSes and regulatlons. 5. In vlew of the above, this of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge