> IN THB HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURB AT BILASPURi ilSHHATTISGARH Writ Petition No. Single Bench PETITIONER: p.h. (iiesen ^^•^s^' '^••'1%^-&^" ^.<St%^-—- ^—- Chandramani I^asad Mishra, S/o R.A. Mishra, Aged about 52 years, Sub-Engineer (Civil), Public W^orks Department, Sub-Division: BhUaigarh, TehsU: Baloda Bazaar, District: Raipur, Chhattisgarh. - Versus - RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Deptt. of PubUcWorks, Mantralaya, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, ChfaattisgaTh. Chief Engineer, Deptt. of PubUc Works, Raipur, Chhattisgam. Executive Engineer, Deptt. of Public Works, Sub-Division: Baloda Baza.ar, District: Raipur, Chliattisgarh. l^ii WRIT PBTJTIPNJTNDBR^ARTICLES 225 AND227 OF THE CQireTlTUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANGE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI AND/OR A3SY OTHBR SUITABLE WRIT OF LIKE NATURB The petitioner, abQve named, m.ost respectfuUy begs to submit as under; - 1 PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONBR: - As mentioned in the cause title. 2 PARTICULARS OP THE RESPONDENTS: - As mentioned in the cause title. n 3. PARTICULARS -OT'THB .ORDERS AQAINglT^SWC:SE|||Jggg THE PSIESBNT PETTHONIS MADB: - li> -•1\, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR StNGLEBENCH : HON'BLEMR. SATISH K. AGNiHOTRI. J. WRITPETmON N0.3763 OF 2004 PeUtioner R^pondents versys Chandramani PrasadTMishra State of Chhattisgarh and othere Present : Mr.Sanjay K.Agrawal, counset fer thepetitioner. Mr. AjayDwivedi, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on 22nd Day of February, 2007) The petitioner, white wortdng as Sub-Engineer In the Pubtic Works Department at Baloda Bazar Sub-Dhnsion has been transferred to the National Highway Division of the said department, at Raipur, vide order dated 20-9-2004 (P-5). t^- 2. No slay order was granted by this Court in this naatter. The transferorder dated 20-9-2004 (P-S) must have been exeeuted by the resoondents. '\> ! '~r;' 3. Be Uiat as it may, with the passage of time, this peBtion has become infructuous as period of transfer is not applicable forever. At this pointof time, there is no quesUon to examine te validify|of the impugned transfer order. However, fhe respondente are at liberty to ®1 3opa{ pass appropriate orders keeping in viewthe public interest and administrative exigency, without insisting on compliance of the impugned transfer order. 4. It is well setUed princfpte of lawthat transfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decided as towhere a parUoular officer/emptoyee be posted keeping in view publlc interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction t»interfere in ttie transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved mala ffcfe, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. 5. In view <rf the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. Noorder as to costs. Sd/'- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge