HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR .B. ON’BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI J. V WRIT PETITION (k) No. 4006 of 20% PETHIQNER. Shiv Charm: Mirrey. Son of Shri Ghashi Ram MirreyAge 42 years, Assistant Tewhér,’ Posted at Primary Schocl Kumekela Block Patthalgaon, Digtrict Jashpur, Chhattisgarh! VERSUS : 1, Stata 0f Chhattjsgarh, Throngh Secretary, School Education Dgpartmeng Mantralayas D,K!S; Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. , Director, Public lmtructions, Pension Bada, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. . District’Education (weer; District Jashpur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS ‘Smt, Sam/respondents, Anju Abuja, Deputy Government ‘ Advocatefor the Frasent: I Sht‘i Anupam‘ Dubey, Advocate for tho petitionet. (Passed’on 19m March 2007) . ORDER The petitioner, while woikjng as Assistant Teacher at Primary Sehool Kumeketaz, Block Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, was transferred to Middie some; Kapua Biock Dhamjaigamj Digtrjct Raigath; on the same terms land conditions vide impugned order dated 29392001 (Annexure A/I ), _ S : H 3% Thgv Madhya Praxiwh .Administrativc Tribunal at Raipur vide interim order dated 2L1 1 ".2001 direcmd to maintain status qlm in ragard to the position of the petitioner as was prevailing on 3110:2001, By virtua of tin: interim order the petitioner is Gentinuing at thé Griginai piane ofpoSting. Be that as it may, with the passage of time thin petition has become infructuous as period of transfer is not appiicable forever. At this point oftime, there is no question to examine the validity of the transfer order, However, the respondents are at iiberty to pass appropriate order keeoing in view the publie compliance ofthe impugned tranefer order. It is weii settied princioie of law that transfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particuigr oEroer/employee be posted; keepingvin View publio interest as vweil as administrative exigenoy, This Court has limited jurisdiction to. interfere in the transfer matter and this interest and administrative exigencyg without insisting on Couit can interfere only in the ease of proved malatide, non- competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the ruies and reguiations. In View ofthe above, this petition stands disoosed o£ No order as to ‘costs. ~ Sd/- . ‘ i Satish K.Agnihotr1 i i ' Judge ‘ it.