HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BILA8PUR 8.B- : HON'BLE MR. SATI8H K. AGNIHOTRI, J. WRniPE'iniO?L(S)No, 3986 of2005 S'-f i. Bimla Dabria, D/o Shri Bisbram Singh Dahria, aged about 45 years, Working as Lady Health Visitor, (LHV), Civil Hospital, Khareiya, Distriet Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) RE8PONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through fhe Secretary, Department ofHealth and Family WeJfare, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2. Director, Health Services, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. Chief Medical & Health Ofiicer, District Raigarh (Clihattisgarh) 4. Officer Incharge, Civi] Hospital, Kharsiya, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 5. Smt. Vibha Topno, Staff Nurse, Community Health Centre, Chabl®, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) Present: Shri Aaupam Dubey, Advocate for the petitioBCT. Sfari Sushil Dubey, Govemment Advoeate for tbe State/respondents 1 to 4. None for respondent no. 5. ORDER (Passed on !6ul March 2007) 1. The petitioner, wfaile working as Lady Heait Visitor ifl the Civil Hospital, Khareiya, District, Raigarh, was transferred to Public Health Centre, Chaple, on the same terms and conditioas vide impugned order dated 11.07.2001 (AnnexureA/1). 2. Tb.is Court, vide order dated 20.09.2001 lassed in W.P. No. 1556/2001, allowed the petitioner to continue as Lady Health Visitor at Civil Hospital Kharsia. Further, the Madbya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Raipur, has also stayed the operation oftfae impugned order. By virtue ofthe said orders, tiie petitioner is continuing at tfae original place ofposting, 3. Be that as it may, with the passage of time this petition has become infiTietuous as period of transfer is not applicable forever. At this point oftime, there is no question to examine the validity of the transfer order. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate order keeping in view t&e public interest and administrative exigency, withost insisting on compliance ofthe impugned transfer order. 4. It is well settled principle of law that transfer is an incident of serviee and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular officer/employee be posted, 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 maiafide, non- competence of authority p^sing the transfer order asd transfer order not being in conformity witfa the rules and regulations. 5. In view ofthe above, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amy.