^ ^ ^ c^/y^^^Mfo' BEFORE THE M.P. STATE ADMINISTRATiVE-^RI^BNASrBENVU.'li'STPijR O.A. N0. '^""isTo^'r ^^^•.•^:^vu-- /12?.61, M-AA>-—I?. fcr'^^iiv, lU /., aif.i,; -t;m, Ttibunal. AEFLIGANT NON-APPLICANT BANSHI LAI, KEIilWST Soh 6f Shri Sunder Sai Execytl.ve Engineer .- Rural Engineering Services Kbrba Distt. Korba VERSUS State of C.G. through the Secretary Department of Panchayat and Rural Development Govt. of Chhattisgarh, D .K. S. Bhavaii, Raipur ORIGINAL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE M.P. StATE ADMINTSTRATIVE TRIBONAL ACT, 1985 ^ HIQH COURT OF eHHATTISGARH ATBH-ASPUR W.P. rS) No.36^of2006 Pefitioner Banshil^l Kenwat Versus Respondents StateofC.G. SB:Hon'bteMr.Jusb'ceSatJshK.AgnJhotri.J ir: r Shri Manish Shanna, Advocate ft>r fhe petiiioner. V. V.S.Murthy, DepufyAdvoeate General wth Smt Anju Ahuja, Depufy Govt Advocate for Vt\e respondent/State. ORDER ( Passed on this ^" day of March, 20)7) The following order oftheCourtispassedbySatish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner while woridng as Exeeutive Engineer in Rural Enginering Department, Korba was transferred to Janjgir, on the same terms and conditions. vide order dated 26.5.2001 (AnnexureA/1). 2. The Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunalat Raipur vide interim order dated 31.5.2001 direeted to maintain status quo in regard to the positton of the petitioneras it was t»-evailing6n 28.5.2001. By yirtue of the interim order fte petitioneris continutngattheor^inalplaceofpo^ing. 3. Be that as it may, with the passage of Bme thfe petffion has become infructuous as period of transfer is not applteable torever. At ttiis point 0? time there js no questfon to examine e vatidity of the transfer order. Howsver,the respondente are at liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the pubtic interest and administrativ®exigency, without inststing on complianceofthe iropugned transfer order. 4. Itis wetl setfled principle of law thattransfer is an incident of service and it is for ttie employer to decide as to where a partieular <rfficer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as vrell as administratiye exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in fhecase of proved malaffde, non-competence of " authority passing ths transfer order and transfer order not being in conformityw'Bi the rules and regulations. 5. In view of the above, ttiis peGtionstands dispc^d of. No orcter as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge