BERORETHEM.P.STATEADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL BENGH RAIPUR ^ u?P^ryi O.A. N0. /200- APPLICANT NON-APPLICANT Smt. Sapna Sharma WifeofShriSanjiv Assistant Professor Deptt; of Sociotogy Govt. Arts, Science & Commerce College, Durg(C.G.) VERSUS 1. StateofC.G. through the Secretary Department of 1-tigher Education Govt. of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S.Bhavan.Raipur 2. Principal Govt.Arts, Science and Commerce College.Durg (C.G.) ORIGINALARRLICAnONUNDERSECTIQNISOFTHEM.P.S'M'E ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNALACT, 1985 ia,,. K & :;U1 -J;{;r ULiJ HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT B!LASPUR SiNGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR.SATISH K.AGNMQTRLJ. Petitisner Respondents WRIT PETITION (S.) N0.39110F2005 Smt. Sapna Sharma versus State of C.G. and another Present : Mr. Maheesh Sharma, counseifor the petitioner. Mr. V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyerforthe respondents/State. ORDER (Passed on 12mof Octob6r,2006) The loriginal applteation was filed before the State Administrative Trihunal.Bench at Raipur, impugning the transfer order dated 24-9-2001 (Annexure A-1), whereby the petitioner, who was working on the post of Assistant Professor at Govemment Arts, Science and Commerce College, Durg, was transferred to the Government College, Lalbahadumagar, DistrictRajnandgaon. 2, Afteradmitting the petitionon6-1^)-20Q1,theTribyrial,by its order dated 12-10-2001, granted status quo wW\ regard to the posting of the petitioner ason 29-9-2001. Learned counsei for the petitfoner submits!that by virtue of the inteiim order, the petitioner is continuing onthe sameplaceofpostirig,i.e.,iSQvemmentArts,SGience and CommereeColjege, Durg. ! f r tilll i:i: l:ti' tl'lii: :i:BI IIM 3. As amatter of fact, thepetitioner has got the final reliefby way of interim order and the petitioner has been on the same place for about five years. The petitioner could not continus at one place forever. -...l...i. ;i..-J 4. It is well settled principle of law that transfer is an incident of service and.it isfor the empioyer to decide as.to where a particuiar ofRcer/empioyee be posted keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has iimited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matters and this Court can interfere only with the case of proved mala ffcfe, non-competence of authority passing thetransfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and reguiations. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not necessary to examine validity of the transfer order at this stage. However, the rsspondents - authorities are directed not to insist on complianceof the impugned transfer order dated 24-9-2001 (Annexure A-1). 5. Thispetition hasbeGome infructuous with the passage of time. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as having become infruetuous. However, the respondents - authorities are at liberty to pass appropriate order for posting the petitioner in public interest and administrativeexigency, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge