Ma 3sma£ mm ‘ O HE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. \_ WRIT PETITION No.6”)? O3 OF 2005 INT mh' \ PETITIONF‘R / Madan Mohan Singh , S/o Late Nand Lal Singh, Aged about 58 years, Occup§tion — Assistant TeacheEwkyo-{Inénment Middle School Salka, Bloék Udaiur, Surguja (C.G.) District V E R S U S ...«.My.” /1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: The Secretaly, Tribal Welfare Department, DKS Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Assistant gommissioner, Tribal ‘Wdfafmbikapur, District ~ Surguja C.G. 3. The Block Education Officer, Udaipur, District- Surguja C.G. WRIT PETITION LINDER VARTIGIrEmQ26/227 , OF r THE \ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE TTf‘rf‘ p ( / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. No. 6‘2‘2‘3 of 2005 Petitiexier Madam Mohan Singh Vcrsus Esapcnclents State 0f Chhatn‘sgarh 5r. others SE: Hon’ble Mr. Jush'ce Satish K. mihotri, J Miss Poomjma Singh, Advocate for the petitionar. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govt. Advocate for th€ respondexlts,’ State. The following onicr of the Court is gassed by satish K. Ayihotri. ”J. 1 1.. The petitioner While workmg as Aesistant Teacher in Gavt. Middle School, Salka, Elock ~Udaipur, District— Surguja was transfen‘ed to fhe ofiice of the Block Educatioii emcer, Kusmi cm the same tenns arid eonditions and he was relieved vide impugned order dated 16. 1 1.2005 (mmexure P/ 1} to jam the new place ofposting. This C ort Véde interim axle: dated 13. 12.2005 direeied to keep Qle b3 impugned relieviog order iii abeysnee 311d the petitioner be £owed to contixnte at Saks, Block— Udaipm: By virtue of the inten'm order, the petitioner has continued at the exiginal place of posting. CDI Thakur ORDER ( Passed on this 1” day cf March, 2007) Be that as it may, with the passage of time this petition has become matctaeus as period of transfer is not applicable forever. At this point of time there is no qeestion to examine the validity of the traiisfer order. However, the respondents are at iiberty to pass approyriate orders keeping in View the public interest and administrative exigency, without insisting on compliance of the irngmgned transfer older. it is well settled principle of law th t transfer is an incident of service and it is for tlie‘ employer to decide a3 to Where a oarticular officer] employee be posted, keeping in View public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited juxisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved malaiide, non—competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and mgulations. . in View of the above, this petition stands disoosed of. Consequently, MsiimP No. 4930] 2005‘stands disposed of. No order as to cos/ts. Sdl—