Thakur HJGH COURT OF CHHATTtSGARH AT BiLASPUR W.P.(S^ No. 3804 of2005 Peti^oner Versus Respondents 1. Gorakh Nate Patel. son of Shri Kurporam Patel, Assistant Teacher, Primary School Kirari D. Dsstrict Janjgsr. (C. G.) State of Chhatti'sgarh, Through Secretory, Schoo! EcSuca^on Department, Mantrateya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2. Dtrector, Publjc fnstructions Chhattisgarh, Pension Bada, RaJpur(ChhattJS9arh). 3. District EducaCion Officer, District .Janjglr Champa. Chhatttsgarh. SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Shri Anupam Dubey, Advocate for the petitjoner. Miss Sunite Jain, Panei Sawyer for the respondents/State. ORDER ( Passed on this 13th day of March, 2007) The foSSowing order of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petltjoner whije workjng as Asslstant Teacher at Primary SchooS, Kjrari (D), Dabhara was transferred to Prsmary Schooi, Kanisth, Rampur, on the same terms and conditions, vide impugned order dated 10.9.2001 (Annexurs A/1). 2. The Madhya Pradesh AcSministratIve Tribunal at Raipur vlde intersm order dated 22.9.2001 dlrected to maintain status quo jn regard to the posltion of the peti^oner as was prevailjng on 17.9.2001. By vSftue of the interim ordsr the petitjoner Is continuSng at the origjnaj place of postjng. 3. Be that as it may, v^ith the passags of time this petjtion has become infructuous as period of transfer js not appSicabSe forever. At thls pojnt of time there is no question to exsmine the vaSidity' of the transfsr order. However, the respondents are at Sjberty to pass appropriats orders keeping in view the public Interest and administratlve exjgency, v/jthout insisting on compiiancs ofthe impusned transfer order. 4. it Is we!S settled princjple of Saw that transfer js an indcSent of service and it is for the emptoyer to decide as to where a particular ofRcer/employee be posted. keeping in view public interest as wed as administratjve exigency. This Court has Ssmited jurisciSction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of provecS malafide, non-competence of authority passlng the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the ru'es and regulations. 5. En view of the above, this petitjon stands ciisposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge