BEFORE THE M.P. STATEADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL BENCH RAIPUR O.A. N0. ^_/2001 jws^S^J....„,..... | S,M^3iJ.i^.).^..-- { Iww.: ^'^^ffr'!~yr~t^-—1 APPLICANT NON-APPLICANT ,>;ffre - i"; A' 1- {SSc^SeSSt Ashok Kumar Nema Son of Late A.P.Nema Professor Deptt. of Sociolo^y Govt. Chhattisgarh College, Raipur(C.G.) VERSUS StateofC.G. through the Secretary Department of Higher Education Govt. of Chhattisgarh, D.KS.Bhavan, Raipur Principal Govt. Chhattisgarh College, Raipur(C.G.) ORIGINALAPPLICATION UNDERSECTION 190FTHEM.P. STATE ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNALACT. 1985 |ii msnBSiMliN"1 S,;WS) 3!SSe^:f!!!'W^^^^SaS3S, sea n !:!i HiGHGEQURTOFCHHATTISefiSHA'ILail.ASPUR SINGl.EBENGN f: HON'Bl.EilVIR. SATISH K. AGNIHGTRI. J. WRlTPETITIONtS.lN044'190F2005 Petittoner ResRondents Vereus Ashok Kumar Nema State of C.G. and another Present : Mr. neesh;Sharms,^cotinss|^rthepetitioner. , Mr. V.V.S.Moprthy, D^puty AdyoGate G^neral with Mr. . Ajay Rwivedi.Panel LawyfirfoftHeresponeients/State. j ORDER <Passedon12t"ofQctober,2006) The original application was filed before the Statej Administratjve Tribi.ina!, Bench at Raipur, impugning the transfer order; dated 26-12-2001 ;(AnnexureA-1),'wherebythe petitioner, wfcib wasii I < working on the post oftesistantRrofessoratGovernment ChHattisgalti |i | College, Raipur, wastransfeiTed to'the Government College.Chtiuria,] 1 DistrictRajnandgaon. r 2. While admitting the petition,| the-4'ribunal, by itsiprder dated 8-1-2Q02, granted ste<us{flra>:with' regard to the postingiaf tKe petitieneraspn 27-12-2001 .LeamedGaunSel^fbrthSpetitiohersuNT'ite that* by virtue of the interim oreieli,;ithes petitKiirier is jcontinuing |ph ittie sameplacei6fp6stin9,i.e.tGtiyeifpente<3HHNtisgarhj©ol|ege,RSipur;f iiaa Slllll iiSii w ^u ffW yii iilll IW31 :!iJlll ^:' :S^E ^t 'S^i i' • ~z":-':.?Sssg^v^^f ^ ~r •"f.- 3. Asamatteroffact.thepetitioherhasgotthefinalreliefby way of interim order and the petitioner has been on the same place for more than fouryears. The petitioner could notcontinue at one place fbrever. T > 4. ..ltiswellsettledprihcipleoflawtt]jattransferisanineident ofservice and it is fbr the empfoyer to decide as to where a particular ofRcer/employee be posted keeping in view publicinterest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction t6 inSerfere with thetransfer matters and this Court can interfere only with the case of proved ma/a ficte, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rulesand regulations. 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 compliance of the impugned transfer order dated 26-12-2(X)1 (AnnexureA-1). 5. Thispetition hasbeeome ihfructuous withthepassage of time. Accordmgly, the petitiqn is dismissed as having become infructuous. However, the respondents—authonties are at liberty to pass appropriate orderfor posting the petitioner in pubiic interest and administrative exigency.in accordancewJthlaw.No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK, AgoflKstEi