'7 0 'l/"3mggg £aach m xi \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION NO. 4964 OF 2004 _ BETWEEN /' Smt‘ Asha Singh Wife of Shri Chandrama Singh, aged about 44 years, occupation Pradhan Adhilshjka, Mata Rukhmani S\ewa Sansthan Chhjndgarh, Distn'ct Dantewada (C.G.) (QR4- .....X“ Myw ———————————PETITION'ER w? 1. ‘ / The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe f1 And Backward Class Welfare, Mandalay, D.K.S. Building, Raipur (C.G,) 2. Collector, Tribal Development, Dantewada (C.G.) Mata Rukhmani Sewa Sansthan, Through its Secretary Jagadalpur District Bastar (C.G.) . Mata Rukhmani Sewa Sansthan Through its Secretary Dimrapal District Bastar (C.G.) 5. Mata Rukhmani Sewa Sansthan Through its President Dimprapal District Bastar (C.G.) ' i i .............. RESPONDENTS 3‘ ‘4? > WRIT ,. PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PERTICULAR OF THE PETITIONER; As stated in the Cause title above. i 6 $9 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGL§ QENC‘ii; HON’B_L__E MR. SATISH K. AGNIHQTW J WRIT PETITION NO.4962 OF 2004 Petitioner : $mt. Asha $ingh VerSUS Respondents : The State of Chhattisgarh and others Presegt, : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, counsei for ihe petitioner. Mr. Ajay Dwivedi, Pane! Lawyer for the Staie/ respondents No.1 and 2. None appears fOI other respondents. ORDER ' (Passed on 23'“ Day of Febtuary, 2007) By this petition, med under Articles 2261227 of the Constitution of india, the petitioner impugns the order dated 6-1 0-2004 (P-7), whereby the respondents have rejected the representation of the petitioner fiied in pursuance of the order dated 26-8-2004 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2774 of 2004 and have confirmed the transfer of the petitioner from Kenya Aashram, Chhindgarh to Kenya Aashram Tongpai. 2. Be that as it may, with the passage of time, this petition has become infructuous as period ‘of transfer is not appiicabie forever. lAt this point of time, there is no question to examine the validity of the impugned transfer orders However, the respondents are at liberty to \ pass appropriate orders keeping in view the pubiic interest and administraiwe exigencyg without insisting on compiiance of the impugned transfer order. 3. it rs wen settled erinciple of law that transfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to deeicied as to where a particuiar officerlempioyee be posted keeging in view pubiic interest as weii as administrative exigency. This Court has iimited jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved maia tide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. 4. in view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order s to costs. a Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge