.^yv •^. %^' -s 2 :- 13 THB HIffi__CQUffl' OF OTBIC&'i'TJHB &S JAB&LPUB (M^P^ W.P.BO •QV 1994 ( TJSBSB AJEfl'ICtB 226 OF TB3 COBS'EI'ruSiaH OF IHDIA ) V3S3.TIOB DHDSB _&B'EICL^ 2_26^_&_^Z. OF IHB GOHSTITUIIQB QP INDIA. FOE BRITS IH_IEB HC UR3, OP GBHriOBMtI M&NB&iOTS PfiOHIBITIOS BTC ...UID fOB &PPROPHIAIB ra_mHEa_Biaacne@s, PBTITiesm B^POHBMTS 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. B&JBSH SHi.EE'lA, A6ED ABOUI 33 XS&BS, eCGTJt I..B.G. (LOWBB BI7ISIOH CLSBK), .T6HPAQ PABCE&'ZM', MABAS&EflJBB, DISIBICT:B&IPBB (M.?.). VEBSUS - STATS OF MAOH'£&. PBADESB 2HBOW5 ; SBCBEEAB? PABCBMAT & SOCTM, WSLFAB3 BBP&B'l'MBH'C, VAI.I.&BH BHA.W&H OPAL (M'.P.). BZB3CTOB PANCH&3&2 & SOCIM, tffiLFABS »E»BrAPB&B^H ffiOPAL (M.P.). PAHCHA.'W & SGCIAI, USLF&RB B&zpra (M.?.). COLI.BC'i'OS B&IPUa (M.P.) G »M»0 jarAD PAHCH&IM DIS'FBIG'E sB&IPUB (M.?.) . BIS'I'BIG'r PMGHAX&.T THBOI?®:SBSBigFABY B&IPBB [M.?.). 1. BBS'AIIS OP Pa'ITI® PAHEIGULABS OF IHB PSriIIOHEB &.s alaove. •T HIGH COURT OF JUDICATVRB CHHATHSGARHs Single Bench: Hon'Me Shri Satlsh K. Agna»oti 1 iSi;ILilti';^^ll^^^^^^g '•*^-s^'^^^^^' PETITIONER : RAJESH SHARMA Vcrsus RESPONDENTS : STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS Shri Rupesh Shrivastava, counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri Paakaj Shrivastava, panel lawyer for respondents. ORAL ORDER (1st Mareh,2006) 1. The petitioner in this petition has unpugaed fhe transfer order dated 30.7.1994 (Annexure A-4), whereby, fhe petitioner was traasferred ficom. Zila Parishad to Janpad Ftetchayat, Dhamtan, due to administrative exigency and iu pubUc interest. 2. No stey was granted and as such fhe petitioner ought to have joiued fhe new place ofpostmg. 3. It is weU setUed principle of law that traasfer is an uicident of service and it is for ttie einployer to decide as to where an. einployee be posted keeping in view public interest as weU as admirustrative exigency. This Court has limited j-tirisdiction to interfere ia thc transfer niatter and fhis Court can interfere onty in the case of proved inalafide, non- competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not beiag ia conformity with the rules and regiilations. In fhe facts aad circiunstaaces of fhe case, it is not necessary to exainine validity of the transfer order at ,?.? ag?^.' this ata^e. lu the facts of the case, the respondents are directed not to iasist upon coinpliance of the impugned transfer order. 4. This petition has become infnictuous with fhe psssage of tune. Accoriuigfy, the petition is disinissed as having beconie irtfiructuous. However, respondents/authorities are at liberty to pass appropriate order for posting the petitioncr in the pubUc iaterest and administrative ex^ency, in accotdance wiffa law. No order as to costs. S^^:M< ^ ,u<'