® 3EEORE THE HON'BLE STATE ADMNISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH AT RAIPUR (CI—MATTISGAm) ‘_’»“ ‘hv {NV/I \‘/I ; ‘EfDL5 2. QM, Qa! , ; Origional Appl ication No. /2001 1 Yashwant Ezmar Patel son of Shri ‘I‘ikeshwar Prasad Patel. Asstt. Teacher. Posted at Primary School Siriagarh. District Janjgir Champa whattisgarh. Appl ic ant VerU. SL1 s 1. State of duhattisgarh. Through Secretary, School Education Department. Mahtralaya. D.K.S.Bhawan. Raipur (Chhattisgarh); 2. Diréctor. Public Instructions Chhattisgarh. Pension ‘Bada. Raipur- (C.G.)o‘ 3. District Education Officer, District Janjgir. &ampa. ..' Nonapplicants. APPLICATI$N UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE *‘“ '_‘— "TRI' BUNAL l9§§ . 3 . @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) No. 3788 of 2005 Yashwant Kumar Fatel Veisus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. J Petitioner Shri Anupam Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. Vi V. S. Murthy, Deputy Advocate Genera! with Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the reepondentslState. O R D E R (Passed on this 9’" day of March, 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. Siriagarh. District — Janigir Champa was transferred to Middie Schooi. Parsada. on the same terms and conditions vide impugned order dated 10.9.2001 (Annexure N1). 2. The Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Raipur vide interim order dated 22.9.2001 directed to maintain status quo in regard to the position of the petitioner as it was prevailing on 14.9.2001. By virtue of the interim order the petitioner is working at the original 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 this point of time there is no question to examine the validity of the transfer order. However, the respondents are at iiberty to pass appropriate otders keeping in View the public interest and administrative exigency, without insisting on compliance of the impugned transfer order. 4. it is well settled principle of law that transfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular ofhcerlemployee be posted. keeping in view public interest as well as administrative ‘exigency. This Court has limited iurisdiction 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. ln view of the above. this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. """ Sd/— m Satjsh K. Agnihotri ,1 [ . Judge Thakur