IN THE HIGHCOURTOF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHATTISGARW WRIT PETn-ION N0. ^958 /2005 PETITIONER <cl^ ..>'5^'%-- ^•s^t^-^"" !^^^ R^PONDENT K.S.SHRIMALI S/o Nathu Ram Shrimali Aged about 61 years ...•- ^ R/oNo.GovemmentBa^cTraining Institute Nagri, Dist. Dhamtari, (C.G.) VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, D K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) Under Secretary, School Education Department, Raipur Distt.Education Officer, Dhamtari (C.G.) WRIT PETn-ION UNDER ARTIGLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF IND1A HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No;4998of%OS PetitioDer K. S. SfarimaU Versus Respondents State.ofChIiattisgarh&ottters SB; Hoa'blc Mr. JusticC Satlsh K. AgaUiotrI, J BluiA. K, Shukla, Advocatc forthc pctitioacr, Siat. Anju Ahuja, Depu<y Govt. Advocate for fhe respondents. ORDER ( Passed on this l"t day ofMarch, 2007) foUowiag ordcr ofthcCourtis passcd bySaUsli K. A^tifcotrl, J. 1. The petitioner whiie working as Prmcipal in the B.T:I. Nagn, Distdct- Dhamtari was trausferred to MagaTlod, wifhin the same district, ou the sainc terEns aad conditions vide impugned transfer order dated 5.9.2005 (Anuexure P/2). 2. This Court vide interim. order dated 20.10.2005 stayed the effect aad operation of the iinpugned traiisfer order. By virtue of the interua order the petitioner has contmued at the original place ofposting, 3, Be fhat as it inay, witli fhe passage of time this petition has becoine infi-uctuous as period of fcansferis not^applicabte forever. At this point of tune there is no question to examine the validity of the teansfer order. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass appnopriate orders kecping in view the public iaterest and nrlTninistrative exigency, without insisting on compUance of fhe earUer transfer order. 4. It is weU settled principle oflaw that traasfer is au. ineident of serrice aad it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular officer/eiaployee be posted keepiog in view public interest as weB as admmistratiwe exigency. Tbia Court has linuted jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and fhis Qiurt can uiterfere only in tfae case of proved malafide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being ui coiifonnity with fhe rules and regulatious. 5. In view of fhe above, this petition standsdisposed of. Consequently, M(W)P No. 4038/3005 stands disposed of No order as to costa. Thskur ^,.s(l/- satishK. Judg otri