'"i .E •i^i!.!:!.llU l!liiji!ilMK IB_ .:®8EE, aESH.a3TO^0»iOTrssEG&'CTR»^A'B.iraaMup'Bit:;::-tot*»»l ?a@a3»S.WSBBa.ARmE©GB..226;.:R^B,ieaaE,,:&|t'HE©EB_227.'Qf ^S_i ^t£t'B (CTI;:i»^SHBIA w >r. HO. _Li3AA-yzooo / Pe'tlfeleaer* 31«H»'Rlavi» aged A8ttt,37. years,s/s' latse SliEl ,2^Bal:,HaBsaA»':S,t,anRl.»"&y. @eeapatl»n-Seaa Gletie^ Sagay Paaehayat Pl'th©ra»SS.s/txlet. -versue- il» State ®fH.P» tteeagli ttoe Seeretaey ^rb»a &dminlstrati.®asnS. ^2. 'Brbaa Bbaprl. •ad 33evslepnen-fc, ?IBS!! Ks !w :ft4 tea HtGH COURTOFSHWVraSQARH AT BU-ASPUR SINOLe BENGH : HON'fflJE MR.SATISHM. AONIHOTRI. A Petitioner ResDondents WRIT PfiTITtON N0.4869 OF T.H.Rtew versys StateofM-P. (now GhhatUsgarh) andanother Present : None appeats forttie pefltioher. Ms. SunitaJam, Pane! LawyerfwtheStete/r^pOTctents. ORDER (Passed on 19ih Day of February, 2007) The ptftioner, whlle wotkingas H^d Ctarie in Munfeipal Council, Kiatepata was tean^erredto Nagar Panctovat, PWtora on the same terms andeonditions, vide order datect 14-8-2000 (P-1). The pedUoner joineel fhe new plaee of proting at Nagar Panchayat, PWiora, but, tbereafter, vide impugneel order datsd 7-8-2000 (P-^.the transter of the prtitioner from Bhalapara to Pithora wsa cancelted until further orders. 2. This Court, vide intonm ordsrdated 28^-a»0,dtreGted for maintaining stetos quo, as was eidsting on that day. 3. Be feat as it roay, with ttie pa^age of tine, this petiUen has become jnfirucfcious as period <rf fransfer is not applieaMe fwaver. ".-^'^- V a' /t -2— At this point of Ume, there is no question to examine ttie wlicllty ofthe impugned fransfer order. However, tte respondente are at libwty to pass appropriate ordare keq»ing 'm wem the public interest and actminlstratwe ewgency, vrtttiout insisUng on eompliance of the impugned transfer order. •\ 1 Oopsl 4. It is well settled princ!ple<rf law thattransfer isan ineident ofservice and it is torthe employerto deckled asto where a particular ofRcer/employee beposted toeping in view publlc interest as wetl as administraUve exlgency. This Court has limlted jurisdiction to jnteriBre in the transfer matter and thls Court can interfere only in the caw of proved roate ffde, non-competence of authprity {»ssing the transfer order and bansfer order not being in conformlty wth ttie rutes and regulations. 5. In view of the above, Uiis peBUon stends disposed of. No order as to costs. 1 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge .—-y'y.-; —^