I VSTHE^HIGViCOVIRTOF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURiC.G.i W.P.NO. / 2005 Petitioner ^, ^Af/ <y^/^ 'A^ /\ AA^A /y^ -?'yA~ '»\ Respondents %•^ .y ^' ^ r^.Q^^ ^"^^y ^^"'r'^^'"' <1N . *-sTU^ v.^ ^W^^^(!..0 \\fflvl .d v^. tof^.^1c^te ^'^/Lo^^% "^JJ^-- '^ '\v' •V-? Bhagirathi Venna, son oflate Dhanauram Venna, aged about 59 years, Agricultural Developinent Officer, Maridir Hasaud, District Raipur, resident of Mandir Hasaud, Raipur. 1) State of Chliattisgarh through Secretaiy, Dept. of Agriculture, Govenunent of Chliattisgarh, D.K.S.Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur. 2) Sub-Divisional Agricultural, Sub-Division, Raipur. 3) Shri Rataesh Bais, Meinber of Parliainent, Raipur Constituency, Raipur (C.G.) ^fi:^' WRIT PETITION IHtDBrt ARTICLBS 226 Ss 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA i 1); De'tails ofthe petitioner: petitioner. 2). As set out ia the coluinn of fhe .'Bi-l!;U Sbl-N'l'fc!'fl!t'* ^- .' ^! HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH AT BIU^PUR W.P. No. 1063 of 2005 ^ Petitioner Bhagiratti Verma Versus Re^ondents State of Chhattisgarh & others SB: Hon'bte Mr. JusBce Satish K. Agnihotri, J Miss Rnu Mishna, Advocate forihe petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for ttie responderte. ORDER (Passed on <his 26th dpy of February, 2007) The following order of the Court is passedAy Satish K. Agnibotri, J. 1. The petitioner while worldng as Agricultural Development Officer, Mandir Hasaud, District- Raipur was transferred to Dantewada on ttie same terms and conditfons vide impugned transfer order ctated Bia 14.2.2005 (Annexure P/1). 2. This Court vide interim order dated 22.3^005 granted stay of tte impugned order, S!l the nsxtdate <rf hearing. 3. Be that as it may, with Sie passage of time Uiis peBGon has b^ome infructuous as period of transfer is not applicable forevar. At thjs point of tims there is no quesBon to examine the ^lidify <rf the tran^er order. However, ttie respondents are at liberfy to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the public interest and administrative exigency, without insisSng on compliance of the impugned tran^er order. 4. li is wel! settied pnncipie of law thrt bansfer is an !ncictent<rf serw^ and it is for the employer to d«;ide as to wrtiere a paiteutar officer/employee be posted keeping in wew public inter^t se well as administrative ewgency. This Court has limited jurisdictfon to interfere •Site'Ai^ ln the transfer matter and this Court can interfere oniy in Uie case of proved malafids, non-competence of autftority passing fce transfer order and transfer order not being in conformily wlth ttie rulas and regulations. 5. In view of tfie above, this petib'on stands dfeposed of. No order as to costs. y Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge