IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO^S^^~OF 2005 PETITIONER .(^ ^/w vw^ ^Mf v-" ./^ .•^y/ ^- ,<?' / -<y .. v t0" y ' <^" '.•'•"'.^•:\'.>" /^l.V Dayalu Ram Sahu, S/o. Shri Brij Lal Sahu, Aged about 56 years, Assistant J'eacher, Priiuary School, Developnient Block Chhuriya, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon, R/o. Village Sagar Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) RESPONDENTS .V VERSUS 1. TheStateofChhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Pruiiary School Education Departnient, ^^ ^ Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, -^.^^ Raipur (C.G.) crrWV^^ ..<1'^>^ ^ <^'.^^ 2. The District Education Officer, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) .3. The Block Education Officer, Churiya, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4. The Head Master, Primary School, Sagar, Tahsil 8s District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/ CERTIORARI, ETC. OR DIRECTION / ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE ETC. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^^ W.P.No. 4557 of 2005 ^ Petitioner Dayalu Ram Sahu Versus Respondents The State of Chhattisgarh & others SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, *1 Shri Roop Naik, Advocaie for the peiitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. O R* D E R (Passed on ihis 27th day of Fsbruary, 2007) The following order of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner, while working as Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Sagar/Churia, was transferred to Primary School, Markaksa, Churia vide impugned transfer order dated 31.8.2005 (Annexure P/1) on the same district. The petitioner has impugned the transfer order mainly on the ground that th®petitioner is suffering from cardic problem and getting treatment at Rajnandgaon. The transfer appears to be passed due to administrative exigency and in public interest. 2. This Court vide interim order dated 21.9.2005 directed for maintaining of status quo, as was obtained on that day, tiil the next date of hearing. 6y virtue of the status quo, the petitioner must have continued on the same place of posting. 3. Be that as it may, with the passage of time this petition has become infructuous as period of transfer is not applicable forever. At ttiis point . of time there is no question to examine the validity of the transfer order. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the public interest and administrath/e exigency, without insisting on compiiance ofthe impugned transfer order. 4. It is well settled principle of law that transfer is an incident of service and it is for the emptoyer to decide as to where a particular ^ offlcer/employee be posted keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved malafide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. 5. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to move appropriate authorities for consideration of this case on humanitarian ground, if so advised. No order as to costs. Bablu