BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENQI AT RAIPUR. aiHATTIssARH I lip/3y ‘g/ “:b/r‘z/m ’ 1 original apply: ation gig. now/II!“ Chandra Mani Khunte, San of Shri Lakeshwar Khunte. Age 40 yearsr " Assi stant Teacher, % r Posted at Janpad Primary Scheol, . . Nan-Agglicants Medhapali, Dabhara: District Janjgeer-Chanpa (6.6.) mlicant Versu$ 1. State of Chhattisg arh. Thraugh Secretary, Schoel Educatien Department. Mantr a1 aya, D.K. S.Bh awan: Raipur (chhattisgarh) 2. Director, Public Instracti ens chhattisgarhr Pensian Badao Raipur. District Education Officer; District J anj gear-Ch ampa. Chtattisgarh. APPLICATION UNDER .SECTION 19 OF THE STATE WINISTRATIVE . I mIBUNAL ACT 1985’ 1. PARTICULAR OF THE APPLICANT: As stated abokre in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE NON APPLICANTS: As stated $ove in the cause title. ”"2 £6 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTtSGARH AT BILASPUR WP. (S) No. 3799 a! 2005 Petitioner Chandra Mani Khunte Versus Respondents sate of Chhattisgarh & others SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Shri Anupam Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. V. V. S. Murthy, Deputy Advocate General with Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondenmlState. i934 0 R D E R ( Passed on this 9'“ day or March, 2007) The following order of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner while working as Assistant Teacher in Primary School. Medhapaii. Dabhara, District — Janigir Champa was transferred to Doghadera. on the same terms and conditions vide impugned order dated 10.9.2001 (Annexure A/l). 2. The Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Raipur vide interim order dated 22.9.2001 directed to maintain status quo in regard to the position of the petitioner as it was prevaiting on 17,9.2001. By virtue of the interim order the petitioner is working at the original place of posting, 3. Be that as it may, with the passage of time this petition has become infructuous as period of transfer is‘not applicabte forever. At this point of time there is no question to examine the validity of the transfer order. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the public interest and administrative exigency, without insisting on *1? compliance of the impugned transfer order. 4. it is well settled principie of law that transfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular officer/employee be posted. keeping in View public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited iurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere oniy in the case of proved malatide. non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. 5. in view of the above, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. m; ' 1 Sd/- r Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur