IN THE HlGki ¢0URT OF WPICATUn AT BILMW$ ‘ WRIT PETITION N0.> $207 12003 PETITIONER Smt Chntamam 3min, !0 Sim Pradsep Kumar 3min, aged 35 yeus, Occupation-Service worhng ts Supervisor in Integrated Child‘ Development Project Udnput Minot ~ Sargnja Rio Ambrkzpur Distmt Sm: (C G) / ' WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF'A SUITABLE WRIT, ORDERS OR DIRECTION; e w -VERSUS- f : l. State ofChhumsgarh thmugh Secretary, Women & Ciuld " 7, DevelopmentDep [tn em, Lég‘A ax» 7, Mmtuluya D K S Bhlvan 1 * Raipm: (C.G.). 2. Director, Women & Chm! D evelopment Deputment, Rape: / (0.6.). z 3. Dismot Progmnme omcer, , Women & Child Development Department Ambrhpur, 13mm: ' e Sargujn (C G ) '4. Project 0$cer, Women &‘Clrildb Development Project, Udaipur, District Sarguja (C.G.‘). . 27 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 3207 of 2003 Petitioner: i ' Smt. Chintamani Sinha Versus Respondents: , State of Chhattisgarh & others Binge Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agilwh‘l. Shn' Rajeev Shrivasfava Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel lawyer for the Respqmjents/ State. ORAL ORDER _ ( 22nd February, 2006) The following outer of the Comt was passed by atISh K. mlhotri, J. l. The petitioner, who was working as Supervisor in Integrated Child Development Pmject, Udaipur, District-Sutguja, was h-ansfened to Integrated Child Development Project, Ramanujganj, Dishict— Surguja vide impugned omer dated 11.9.2003. The petitioner has filed this petition impugning the transfer order dated 11.9.2003 on the ground that the petitioner has not made any application/request for transfening her to any other place. Learned counsel further submits that it appears that some other persons has forged her signature in making application,pursuant to which the impugned transfer order was passed. ‘2. This Court by inte’ order dated 29.10.2003 stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 11.9.2003 until further orders. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of this court’s order dated 29.10.2003, the petitioner has continued on he same old place of posting and the impugned order was never t t .vs i, t 28 givan (£‘ect to in 1e$pect of the petitioner. The petitioner has been granted &al relief by interim 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 where a particular omcer/employee be Vposted 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 malande, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and Iegulau'ons. The petitioner] employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place, forever, by Court orders. At this stage, it is not necessary to examine validity of the transfer order at this stage. In the facts of . the case, x x, q. . it“ ,. the respondents are directed not to insist upon compliance ofthe impugned transfer order. This petition has become infrnctuous with the passage of time. ccordingly the petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. However, respondents/authorities are at liberty to pass appropriate order for posting the petitioner in the public interest and administrative exigency, in accordance with law: No order as to costs. ' SW. :3 .Siflsh K. Agnihotri \ Judge c’ / 7 A