<-: >f S>J BEFORE THE M.P. STATEADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH RAIPUR O.A. N0, fv^;/2001 (!^i;'^>)^(^^^ APPLICANT NON-APPLICANT Smt. Alpana Deshpandey Wife of Shri A. Deshpandey Assistant Professor Deptt. of Home Science Govt. College, Bhilai-3 Distt. Durg VERSUS 1. StateofC.G. through the Secretary Department of Higher Education Govt. ofChhattisgarh, D.KS.Bhavan, Raipur 2. Principat Govt. Coltege Bhilai (3) Durg (C.G.) ORIGINAL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 1 9 OF THE M. P. STATE ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNALACT. 1985 HIGHCOUR'FOJ=GHMAT?nSGARHATBILAS}?UR SINGL.EBENCH : HON'BI-E^R.SATiSMK.IAGNIHOTRI.J WRITPETiTiONfS. N0.3888 OF^605 Petitioner ResoQndents Smt versus 1 StatepfC.G.jand another CONTEMPT PETiTM Petitioner versus Resodndent 'NNQ1.1200FS006 Smt Y.S Present Mr. Maneesh^Sharma, counsei^ fo thepetjtions. Mr. V.V.S.Moorthy, Depyiy jAdvocatd Ajay Dtfyivedi, Panel Lawyersfor the W.P.(S.)No.3888^005; Mr. Pahkaj Shrivastava, coiansel for| ContemptPt.NQ.120/2006. ASpana Deshpandey Alpana Deshpande Beie General with Mr. r^spdndents^tete in the|respondent in ORDER 1 (Passedpn12tnof0ctober,2( These are two petitions. i.e., sWrit Ret|ion j(S.) No.3888 of 2005 andContempt PetitionNo.120 of 2006. THe contempttpetition .i''::;.'^:::'l.f:'.. i''^ arises in the writ petition. Thus, the writ petjtiorj and the TO :11''l'.:.l;:;'l;i'-i::,;llr/:'^f% petition are being dispbsed of by this comrnon orderl. i ii i. 1 2. The original application was filed before the State t' ''.;.• , .... ' .' ' •'. lv . ' ; . ;: . ;'. • 1 ;: •:'- / • .:•.-? Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Ralpur, impugning the transfer order dated 24-9-2001 (AnnexureA-1).^er®bythepetitioner.^ J .• J l:l,.;-.j working on the post of Assistant P^ofessor at Government Gollege. 1';/--'...j::;:':- '•....' iv.-'.'"/''i^.i-':^'.'-' Bhilai^. District Duig ^s transferred to| the^^^^^^^^G 1 ;• . : • , ' • ^ • ^' . .", '• ; • ' :\: • • . ^ Arjunda.DistrictDurg. | j 3. ^^radmittingthepetitjonon6-10-20Q1,theTribunal,by itsorderdated 12-10-2001, grantedstefysgi^with^^^^^^re^ /) posting bf the petitioner as on 27-9-2001!. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite there being the said 6rder of statusquo, id 6r a transfer order dated 30-6-2006 (Annexure C-3 in! No.120 of 2006) was passed transfemng the petitioner to Government P.G. Coiiege, KQnda&aon. District Bastar. J However, no elfect t6 the said order dated-30-6-2005 was given. i Contempt P^ltion 4. As a matter offact. the petitidner, byylray 6f irTferim orderr dated 12-10-2001, remained posted on the |same place, i.e,, GovernmentCollege, Bhilai-3, District Durg for abc^ut fiye yeare. The petitioner could not continue at one piace foirever. 5. It iswellsettled principle of law thattFEinsferis an ineident of service and it is for the employer to decide as tci where a particuiar j otficer/employee be posted keeping in view public j intetest as weil as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jur'^diction to ihterfere withthe transfer matters and this Courtcan interfereoniywi^ i.. .;. '':i: ^. of proved mate ^^. non-competence^^^o^ order and transfer order not being in CQnformity |wlth5 the rules and -....^^ v •i r'lil' reguiatiQns. None ofthe above groundsare availabieto the petffi^^ In the facts and circumstances ofithe case, it^ examine validity of the transfer orders at this stage. However, the respondente - authorities are direct^l not fo insist on compiiance of the transfer orders dated 24-9-2001 and i30-6-2CX)6. 6. !. • : Accordingly. the writ pietition stands disposed of ahd the contempt petition is dismissed. Notice to the . I.C contempt petition is discharged. ! However, tiie respondehts - authorities are at liberty to pass appropriate order for posting the T' . • .-I petitioner in public interest and administrative exig^ncy.inaccordance wlth Saw. No order as to costs. 7. A copy of this order be plsced on respondent in the the record of the contemptpetition. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge