AI “aw” W‘ Rajiv Ratn Choubey, s/o . aged about 48 years, Sup‘érintedent - Post Matrike Government mployees Boys Hostel. Raig arh , VERSUS . (1) Respondents (2) state of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, TribLe Wale- fare Deparunent, D.K.S. Bhawan, (Chh.) Commissioner, Schedule Cast, Sdiedule Tribe, Backward class and Minority Development Department, Ravishanker . University Campus, Raipur, (cmattisg arh) Collector, Raigarh, Distt. (Chhattisgarh) Assistant Commissioner, Tribel Developnent, Raigarh (who) 19 OF AWINISTRATIVE (3) (4) APPLICATION UNDER SECTION TRIBUNALs Ac'r 1985.’ (1) ”Name and Address of Applicant. Néme and Address :1 of Respondents. (2) own... m...” ww« M Late shri R. R. 7‘ Choubey (Chhatti sg arh) . Raipur. Raig arh , As stated above o / As stated above. wntdeozo c ail ‘ W g \ H!$H CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. {S} No. 3722 of 2005 Rajiv Ram Choubey Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others SB: Hon'b!e Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotrit J Petitioner Shri Manoj K. Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. V. V. S. Murthy, Deputy Advacate Genera! with Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govt. Advccate for the respondents/State. 0 R D E R (Passed on this 9‘“ day of March, 2007) The foiiowing arder of the Court is uaseed by Satish K. Ag nihotri. J. 1. V The petitioner was working as Superintendent in Post Metric Government Employees BoysiHostei. Raigarh. in his place. Shri Dharmendra Singh Bais was transferred to Raigarhvide order dated 22.6.2001 (Annexure N2) but no order regarding the placement of the petitioner was passed. . The Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunai at Raipur vide interim order dated 30.6.2001 directed to maintain status quo in regard to the position of the netitioner as it was prevaiiing on 29.6.2001. By virtue of the interim order the petitioner is continuing at the originai piaee of posting. 3. Be that as it may. with the passage of time this petition has become infructuous as peried of transfer is not appiicabie forever. At this point of time'there is no question to examine the vaiidity of the impugned order. However, the respondents are at iiberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in View the pubiic interest and administrative exigency, without insisting on ‘compiianoe of the impugned transfer order. “4. in view of the above. this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. may: emu v NM hamwww '~~ sw— gi ‘ Satish K. Agnihotri ,1 l Judge i i Thakur r