am ur=r=m1 1W: mmfaai ammai wr‘ra Um an [ J ai‘r. v. yam: non EQf’ aFfr M 3n%fcm' 8 3m 3 m EH . g 3n%aa trar grazia unrr '9 n. 5r. zI ymmfam aim Mhf‘alm r-E mw a a: E 33a firm 7% ymfna; m :i1‘r;‘<' 3 mm a armrrtr, army WT aw? 3mg 13w 31 Emma? 5mm WTT— afaa m su arfa mm fawn 113m, mtg? faar frag? 3113 $%Iaz? airfarefr fawa WIT am? mag? 3mg a'e'rw m WWW fave? ma? 331%KW mar ? 33. n g gg w M/V L70 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR : CHHATTISGARH .. SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. WRIT PETITIOM (S! N0. 4039 OF 2005. Ku. Harsha Jani Versus $§§EQQ§QE$I§ State of Chhattisgarh & others, Present : Shri Y.C. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Pane! Lawyer, for the State/ respondents. (ORAL ORDER) (Passed on 14‘“ July, 2006) The petitioner was working as Upper Division Teacher in Pre Primary School, Baimanelir, Nayaparaj Jagdaipur. By order dated 08/10/2001(Annexure-A/1), the petitioner being surpius teacher in Government Pre Primary Schooi, Baimandir, Nayapara, Jagdalpur was transferred to Government Higher Secondary 3chooi, Dingrapai. Black ?okapai, District Jagdaipur, The petitioner has fried this petition impugning the said order dated 08/1 0/2001 (Annexure—AH) on the ground that he was deciared as surplus‘without following the Circular dated 30/06/2001 (Annexure—A/2). On the Original Application filed before the MP. State Administrative Tribunai, Bench at Raipur, the Tribunal by its order dated 23-10-2001 granted status qua with regard to her posting as on 15402001. According to the petitioner, since then she has been continuing to work as Upper Division Teacher in Government Pre Primary School, Balmandir, Nayapara, Jagdalpur. Be that as it may, the petitioner has been granted m'xa‘ relief by interim order dated 23/10/2001. The petitioner has no right to continue at one piace for ever. V (2) Transfer is an incidence of service and it is fer the empioyer to post the employee at a particular place in View 9i the administrative exigency and in the public interest. Accordingiy, the respondents/ State is at liberty to post the petitioner as per the administrative exigency and in the public interest. This petition has become infructuous with the passage of time. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case. it is expected that the respondents] State will not insist the petitioner to comply with the impugned order dated 08/1 0/2001 . (3) For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to eosts. Parties are entitled for certified copy of this order. sal— _ . Satish K- Agmhm“ Judge ip‘ "l