Petitionay Ku. Prachi Singh Versus Resgcndenis Staia sf CG. and another Prea’ni‘ : Mr. Maiaeesh Shanna, counsei far ih$ petiiianer. Ag'ay Mr. V.V.S.Mom‘ihy, Dwivedi, Panei Lawyer Daputy far Advocate 2179 respamienfsfSiaie. Generai wiih Mr. (3R§E§§ Ful—e... {Pas'sed an 1?? e?‘ Gefebsr, 2W6) The originai 'appi‘ication was filed befare the Sia‘te Mminisiraiive Tiibuna}, Bemh at R‘aipun impugning ihe transfer Ofder éawd 249—200? (Annexufe A4}, whayeby the peiitiea’aer, whc was W, working an ihe nos: of Ass§stam Professcr at Govemment Csilege, Seepati, District BiEaswr, Was tmnsferreé to the Gm’emment Coimge. Ekmrajhara, Di'sti'ici Burg. 2. The Ta‘bunai, by iis arder date<3 7-3 1-2001. gfanied sz‘aius qua with regard to the peeking 9f ihe pefiiioner as on “12-10-2001. Learned counsei fog" the peiiiicmer sabmits that by viriue o? the émermz arder, the peiitiomr is Cominuing on the same p§ace of posiinggie” Governmem CoElege, Seepaf, Disiricilaiiesspur. aa As a mattef of fact the petitioner has got ‘i‘ne fina! redief by way of in’iefim ofder and the petiiioner has been on fne same piace fo¥ about five years. The petitiona cou§d mt cont§nue at one place forever. 4. it is wel! settled principie of !aw ihai iransi‘er is an “ idem of service arid it is fOi the empioyer to decide as t9 where a partieaiar ef‘iicen’emeioyee be pasted keeping in View pubiic interest as we” as administrative exigency. This Cauft has iimited iurisdiction in interfere with ihe irensier matiers and inis Conn can interfere oniy with the case of proved maia fide, nen-compei‘ence of authenty passing the transfer orcier and transfer ordet not being in conformity with the ruiee and reguiations. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not necessary to examine validity of the transfer order at this stage. However, the respondents —« authorities are directed not to insist on oompiianee ot the impugned transfer order ciated 24-§-2G81 (Annexure A-i). v? 5. This petition has become infructuous with the passage of time. Accordingiy. the petition is dismissed as having become inti'uctuous. However, the respondents -— authorities are at iiioerty to pass appropriate order for posting the petitioner in pubiic interest and administrative exigency, in acpordance with law. No order as to costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Gooal wfff‘: