Thakur HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.CS) No.3819of2005 Petltioner Versus Respondents 1. 2. Suncier La! Kashyap, aged 55 years, S/o Shrl Late K. L. Kashyap. Assistant Teacher, Govt. new Primary Schoo!, Jsrhabhaths, TshslS & Dlstrlct- Bilaspur. Stete of Chhat&'sgarh, Through Secre^ry, Schooi Educa^on Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). DIstrict Education Officer, Dlstrfot- Bs'aspur (Chhanisgarh). SB: Hon'bie Mr. Justice Satish K. AgnShoSri, J Shri Y. C. Sharma, Advocato for thc petitioner. Sunlta Jatn, PaneS Sawyer for She respondents/SSate. ORDER ( Passed on this 13th day of March, 2007) The fol!owing order of the Court Is by SaSish K. Agnlhotri, J. 1. The petltioner whISe working as Asslstant Teacher at Govt. New Prlmapy' School, Jarhabhatha, Dlstrict- BIIaspur was tr-ansferred to MiddSe SchooS, Karma, on the same terms and conditlons, vjde impugned order dated 3.9.2001 (Anrsexure A/1). 2. The Madhya Pradesh Admlnistratjve Tribuna! at Raipur vide interim order 26.9.2001 dirscted to maintajn status quo in to the position of the petitjoner as was prevaijing on 18.9.2001. By vsrtue offrse interim order the petitloner Ss contiRUJng at the originaE pSacs of posting. 3. Bs that as it may, v»ith the passage of tsme thls petttion has become Snfructuous as period of transfer is not appSjcabte forever. At this pojnt of tiRie is no question to examlne the vaildity of the transfer order. However, the respondents ars at llbsrty to pass appropriate ordsrs keeping jn view the publjc interest and admjnistratlve exigency, wlthout jnsistjng on compliance of the jmpugned transfsr order. 4. 11 is v/ell principte of jav»'that transfer Is -an incident of servtce and It is for the employer to decide as to where a parttcujar officer/emptoyee be posted. keeping in viev»' public intersst as we§S as admjnistrative extgency. Thls Court has IJtTsited jurisdSction to interfere In the transfer matter and thls Court can jnterfere onty jn the case of proved majafide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not in confornilty with the rules and regulations. 5. In vtev»'ofthe above, this stands disposed of. No order as to costs. SdJ- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge