BEFORE THE HON‘ BLE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH AT RAIPUR (Q‘IHATTISGARH) ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO . § 200 1 W’xiA j m /” Dev chand Patel son of Shri Munshi Lal Patel. Asstt.‘ Teacher, Middle School, Baghouda. Distt. Janjgir Champa C.’G. . . . Applicant VS . 3.‘ $tate of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary. School x§ Education Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S.Bhawan. Raiplr (Chhattisgarh) . 2 . Director . Public Instructions Qihattisgarh Pension Bada. Raipar (C.G.). 3. District Education Officer, District Janjgir mampa Chhattisgarh. APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF ’IHE STATE ADPENISTRATIV TRIBUNAL ACT 1985.! u Non applicants HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. (S) No. 3797 of 2005 Petitioner Dev Chand Pate! Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J V Shri Anupam Dubey. Advocate for the petitioner. V. V. S. Marthy, Deputy Advocate General with Smt. Anj'u Abuja, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondentsIState. .e"; O R D E R ( Passed on this 9‘“ day of Match, 2007) The following order of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri. J. 1. The petitioner while working as Assistant Teacher in Middle School, Baghouda, District — Janigir Champa was transferred to Primary School, Kirar, on the same terms and condtions 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 17.9.2001. 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 liberty to pass appropriate orders 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 ofticerlempioyee 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 malahde, 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. l Vi Satish K. Agnihotri .1 l . Judge ‘ sw— .Thakur /\