S‘ngm $enah £,\/ A w M Cg GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR: LNTHE HI w. P. No.43 “(O/2004 ( X (AW Shobharam Sahu, aged about Sahu, 39 S/o years Shli Maniram Occupation PETITIONER l. WRIT ?ETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA F NATURE OF MANDAMU DIRCTIONS OR OR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE S CERTIORARI ETC OR ANY OTHER " ORDER TO DO IUSTICE IN THE MATTER PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER : \DAQyOdS Constable No. P.S. Keshkal , Distt. 529$ Bastar (C3) aww $0$§§$ q:&,,:§ $7 VERSUS g5 RESPONDENTS / 1. The Stats of CG. Through the Secretary of Home Police Deptt. D.K.S, Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2. Director General of Police Raipur Dist. Raipur (co) 3. Superintendent of Police Bastax, (V Distt. Bastar @D HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH A? BILASPUR ; WRST PETHTION N0.497€) OF 2004 Present : Mrs. Renu Kachar, counsei for the pefiiioner. stateirespondents. Mr. Utkarsh Verma. Depuw Government Advocaie far the ORDEE (Passed on 22“ Day Qf February, 2007) By this petition, filed under Articles 226J227 of the Constitution of india, the petitioner impugns the order dated 31 -7-2004 (P45), whereby the respondents have rejected the representation of the petitioner Fried in pursuance of the order dated 27-4-2004 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1126 of 2004 and have confirmed the transfertorder dated 28-2-2004 (P4). The petitioner has been ordered to compiy With the transfer order dated 28~2-2004 (P4). 2. Be that as it may, with the passage of time, this petition has become infructuous as period of transfer is not appiicabie forever. At this point of time, there is no duestion to examine the validity of the impugned transfer order. However, the respondents are at tiberty to jg; pass appropriate orders keeping in View the pubiic interest and ‘14 e” Petitioner : Shobharam Sahu Versus Resnondents a administtative exigency, without insisting on comptiance of the impugned transfer order. 3‘ It is weH settied principie of law that tran$fer is an incident of service and it is for the empioyer to decided as to where a particular offwea'lemployee be posted keeping in View pub1ic interest as \wll as administrative exigency. This Court has iimited jurisdiction to inierfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere oniy in the case of proved maia ode, nan~competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the ruies and reguiations. 4. in view of the above, the writ petitton stands disgosed of. No order as to costs. a Sd/— satish K. Agnihom' Judge