/" af ^o^8(<^ IN THE M.P. STATE ADMZNIS'FRATIVE__TRIBUNAL AT JAB^yLFaR |1 ORIGINAL APPLICA3PION N0.? -^ ' ' /2002 APPLIC^W Purshottam Das Gupta S/o^ Late Shri Bishesvirar Gupta Aged 46 years WorMng as porest Ranger Q/o» Khodari Maravhi Forest Division Distt^ Bilaspur Chhattisgarh State Versus RESPONDSlMTS Sta.te of Chhattisgarh Through secretary J^linistry of Forest D.K. Bhawan Raipur Chhattisgarh principal Chlef Conservator of porests^ Ciihattisgarh Ralpur Shri J,R, Dhurve Range Officer ^ Ganie Range Badal ichol Sanctaxy jashpurnagar Distt^ jashpurnagar ^c'garh 4^ Divisional porest Officer Kftodari Marhavi Forest Division Dist-t. Bilaspur c'garh. APPLICATION Ui'<IDSR SECTION 19 OF THE ADMINISTRA.TIVB SRIBUNALS' ACT- 1985. r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE IVIR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI. J. WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 2179 OF 2005 Petitioner : Purshottam Das Gupta Versus Responctents : State of Chhattisgarh and others Present : None appears for the petitioner. Mr. V.V.S. Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General with Mrs. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Government Advocate for the Stete. ORDER (Passed on 9th Day of March, 2007) The petitioner, while workmg as Forest Ranger at Forest Division, Biiaspur was directed to hand over the charge of the post to the respondent No.3, vide impugned order dated 10-8-2002 (Annexure A-1) whereby the transfer order of the respondent No.3 was cancetled. 2. The Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, vide jnterim order dated 31-10-2002, granted stay of the impugned transfer order dated 8-10-2002 (Annexure A-1). Pursuant to the interim order the petitioner is continuing at the original place of posting. 3. Be that as it may, with the passage of time, this petition has become infructuous as perioci of transfer is not applicable forever. At this point of time, there is no question to examine the vaiidity of the impugned transfer order. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate orders keepjng jn view the public interest and administrative exigency^ without insjsting on compliance of the impugned transfer order. 4. It is well settled principje of law that transfer is an incident of service and it is for the emptoyer to decided as to where a particular officer/empioyee be posted keeping in view pubiic jnterest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere Jn s Subhash the transfer matter and this Court can jnterfere only jn the case of proved mala fide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not bejng in conformity with the rutes and reguiatlons. 5. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge -i