Petiticnero n. n u -kvnv~’. vvvxl urvvn»'mwrow:vw,w /_wwm V , ¥ -‘ Etou ‘ ai gg coua mg) Ramkumar Keshri, scn ozE Late Maaho Sac Keshri, aged about 42 years, Occuption U.D.C. Nagar Panchayat Ramanujganj Distt: gé'réuja M.P° /,N Versus. IN THE HIGH COURT 'OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR M.P. W WRIT PETITION N0. ----'- ---Of 99. The State of M.P. Through the Secretary, Local Admigistra‘tion Dept. Bhopal M.P. 92. Under Secretary, Local Administration Dept. M.P. Bhopal . x 1 Director, J Town Administration M.P¢ ‘r Bhopal . _ 9 K 4. Nagar Panchayat, ‘ 1‘ (i E Ramanujganj through its ‘. Chief Municipal Officer, ‘ - 1" Ramanujganj Distt: Sarguja M.P. 49¢ a _ b)! WRIT PETxTION UNDER aRTICLE 226/227 r, n6 .,., H "' OF THE CONSTITUTxON OF INDIA. O.‘ féx.‘ ; \ €3’:,§“~--’J ‘fr 33 . . {f/x l . i Particulars of the respondents:- l As mentioned above. contd.....2 M PIGH COURT OF CHHA["!‘!‘3GARH AT BILASPUR W P No 886 of 19g9 Petitionar Ramkumar Keshn' VErsus Respondsnts The State of M.P. (110w CG.) 85 othcrs SB: Hon’blc Mr. Justice Satish K. Agihotri, .J Shri A. K. Prasad, Advocate for thc petitioner. 7 ‘ Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the respondents] State. : ‘ ’9 O R D E R ( Passed on this 19th day of F‘ebmary, 2007) i” ‘ Th6 following ordsr of tbs Com is passsd by Satish K. Aglihotri, J. 1. The petitioner while working as Upper Division Clerk in Naga ' Panchayat Ramanujganj was traosfenred to Mungeli on the same terms and conditions vide impugned transfer order dated 20.7. 1998 (Annexure A/S). . This Com vide hiteiiin order dated 10.3.1999 directed that if the petitioner Wes not relieved, the operation of the order should remain stayed. 3. Be that as it may, with the pasoage of time this petition has become inhuctuous as geriod of traiisfer is not aptih'cable forever. At this point of time there is no question to examine the validity of the transfer order. However, the tespondents are at liberty to pass aporopriate orders keeping in view the public interest and administrative exigency, without insisting: on compliance of the earlier transfer order. . It is well settled principle of law that transfer is an incident of service arid it is for the employer to decide as to Where a particular o$ceriemployee he posted keeping} in View public interest as well as administrative exigenoy. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the trailsfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved malafide, non- competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. ; . in View of the above, this petition stands disposed of. No order , ‘ as to costs. 0£ ‘I//Ih . sw- sans}: K. Amt???“ Judge f Thakur r w . \