,*• .11-: <a <a:ll'.:'~l-"' yll.<(» * Oi%IO:i-.|. ^h'-7':'t !? m'sl ff ^1,^)^0" £i'®o.§ ws.w s:w^. i-<y'::;::v.':» :m-w^' lM.:^'181iOi ilii ^-B.'6?%; *>i0'*t^^: W^.fi.i,.*. •l"alll«»*'^ s i-i aKi •S43 g'ia ft-p ;'<»:.: '*!''&VK. :g.'0i^^» il't?a1 Wu 8< l.'tl.a)-?(' >^..^.;.g/4 ffi^'wl OS ;gtii;'ei" :* ••ri'we1 L9.t<1:'..^ ^>.e,^» Gl(0,s-«, ^,il-l.§'%. Ui ,:'il.(S;T( :tll 1%:r s^,,..1 •,i^'.''M * ST<!S°* ?!-)::. l-i :&.13;:C- .CS-.M^; •pl :<• -*:: <?3'.» 9 »»•; ilf '.ffi-ei.i* lilil ws sa, e n M y^l-g s-'oSS •m <a i '••»>•- I^E » g-n -ui- VSK HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT BILASPUR Writ PetWon No. 2677 of 1994 Petitioners : K.K. Singh and another Versus Respondents : Siate ofMadhya Piadesh and anottier §fi : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Aanihofri. .1. Present: None appears for the petitioner. None appears for the '&sponttents. ORDER (Passed on this 21M day (rf Fehruary, 2007) The petittoner, while working as Assistant Enaneer in ttie offlce of the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, was transferred to Munuapal Corporatton, Ujjain "ide impugned "rder dated 27.7.1994 fl3/1Q). Ths High Court of Madhya Prsdssh v'ids interim oralsr datsd 8.S.84 has stayed the impugned oreler dated 27.7.1994, therebythe petffioner continued to remain at the oid piace of posting i.e. Municipai Corporation, Raipur. Be that as it may, wfth the passage of time this petition has beeome infructuous, as period of transfer is not applicabte forever. At ttiis point cS time 1tie*'e 15 n^ ^yestio" to s5^irnlfs th©vs!Idiiy of Ihe tTans?&r o>ridlmr. Howsvsr, the rsspondents are at libsrt,' to pass appropriais ordere keeping in view the pubhc interest an<j adminisfraSve exigency, without insisting on compiiance ofthe eariier transfer order. it is well senled principieof law that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to deeide as to where a .Mrticular officer/employee be posted keeping in view public interest as well as administrative vrigwv?/. This Court has !in'',!tsd jurisdiction to intsrfsrs in ths fransfsr niattsr and this Court csn interfer®only in the case of provsd malafide, non-competonce of authority passing the transfer order and fransfer order nof being in conforraity with the rules and regulations. tn view of the above. this petition stends disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnih' Judge '^