HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BtLASPUR W.P.(S) No.3962of20<» Petittoner Dr. Ku. Wnita Vishvkarma, age 31 years, D/o Shri K. R. Vishvttanna, Lecturer - Zoolc^y, Govt. Model Schoot, Farasgaon, Dlstrict- Baster (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarti, Through Secretar^, Tribal, Scheduted Caste, Scheduted Tribe, Backward Classes and Minority Welfare Department, D. K. S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. 3. Collector, District- Baster (C.G.) Assistant Cwnmi^ioner, Tribal Welfare, District- Baster (C.G.) SB: Hon'bto Mr. Justjce Satish K. Agnihofri, J Shri Rakesh Anthony, Advocate for the petifioner. Shri Sushi! Dubey, Govt. Advocateforlhe respondents/State. ORDER ( Passed on this 161h day of March. 2007) The following order of ttie Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner vMe workir®as Lecturer at Govt. Model School, Farasgaon, District- Baster was transferred to Surguja, on the same terms and condiUons, videimpugned order dated 1.10^(X)1 (Annexure J A/1). 2. The Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Raipur vide interim order dated 22.11.2001 directed to maintain status quo in regard to ttie positiwi of the pefiUoner as was prevaillng on that day. By virfaie of the interim order the petitioner is continuing at the original place <rf posBng. 3. Be that as it may, with the passage of time this petltion has become infructuous as perkxi of transfer is not apfScabte ibrwer. At Vms point of time there is no question to examine the validity of the transfer order. However, ths respondents are at Cberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the publte interest and administrative eidgency, without insisting on compliance <rf the impugned Sransfsr order. Amit 4. It is well setUed principle of law that fransfer is an incident of servtee and it is for the employer to deckte as to where a pariicutar officer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdicUon to interfere with Uie bansfer matter and this Court can entertain judicial review only in the case of proved malafide, non-competence of authority passir^) the fransfer order and transfsr order not being in confcirmity wfth the ruies and regulations. 5. In view of the above, this peUtron stands disposed <rf. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri -J