@ ALF r? HIGH CQURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTI$GARH: BILAS?UR Single Bench: Hon’ble shri Satish Kn Agnihotrig J. w“ P“ No‘ 1327 OF 2003 ' Itwayi Lal Ajgole, S/ o Shri Sadh Ram Ajgole, agad about 56 years, Occupation Ssrvice, presently posted as Block Education Offlcer (Pm'ncipal), Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.). Versus Respondoxlts : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, thru, Secretary, Department of SC, ST, Backward Class 3;, Minority Welfare, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 7‘2. The Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Raipur (C1111attisgarh) . Peti’rionsr The Director, Tribal Development Department, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 4. Narsingh Sidar, Incliarge Block Education Oilicer, Gharghoda, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). Shri Ashish Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Shli Pankaj Shiivastava, Panel lawyer for the respondents No. 1 to 3f State, Miss Sunita Jain, counsel for the respondent No. 4. QRAL QRDER (6th February, 2006) 1. The petitioner, who was working as Block Education Otlicer at Gharghocla, District Raigarh was transferred vide order dated 3.5.2003 (Annexure P-S) to the Government Higher Secondaly School, Khamhar, Block Development Dharamjajgarh, District Raigarh. 2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned transfer order dated “1.2.2003 (Annexure 13—2} also whereby the respondent N0. 4 was transferred from the post of Lecturer, Government @ Higher Secondary School, Urba, Block Developmellt Tamnar, District—Raigarh on his; own expensas to the post of Ill-Charge Block Education Officer, Gharghoda, District-Raigarh in place of the potitioner. The. pctih'oncr has filed this petition challenging impugned (04. Hansfer order on the ground that the impugned transfer order dated 3.5.2003 (Annexure P-3) was malafxde exercise of power to accommodate the respondent N0. 4 at the office of Block Education Officer, Gharghoda, Distu'ct-Raigarh. This Court, Vide interim order dated 26.3.2003 granted relief to the extent that the peh'tioner would be allowed to continue till the next date of hearing, if the petitioner had already not been relieved. This, order was neither varied nor modified later on. By virtue of this interim order, the petitioner continued at the old place ofposting. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this impugned orders dated 3.5.2003 and 1.1.2003 deserve to be quashed because it amounts to malafide exercise of powers. l have gone through the documents appended to the petition and heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has not proved any malafide except that the respondent No. 3 has transferred the petitioner accommodate the respondent No. 4 in place of the petitioner. The alleged malaiide is not proved.- Even otherwise, the petitioner has got final relief by way of interim order. Even if the impugned orders are quashed, the i net effect would have been that the petitioner have continued at the same place of posting that tha patitionm‘ already enjoy5d by virtue of thf: interim order passed by this Court. . In the facts of the case, it is not necessaxy to go into the validity of the impugned order at this stage in detail. However, respondents/authorities are expected that they would not insist upon compliance of the impugned transfer orders dated 1.2.2003 and 3.5.2003. 8. The respondentsf authorities have liberty to post an employee at a particular place in the public interest as well as in administrative exigency, in accordance with law. 9. It is well settled principle of law that transfer is an incident of sendce and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular officerfemployee is to be posted in the interest of administration and public. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in transfer matters and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved malaiide, non—competence of the authon'ty passing the transfer order, and order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. 10. In View of the above, the petition is disposed of. No order as y Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge x ,1 _ to costs. Bablu