Divkion {3am}! {(3%} ! “ V w IN TX‘EHIGH COURT OF MADHYA P. aSH AT JABAL‘EQR MISC. PETI mo._’;$1S.L ma 1992 xmummummumm ‘1 PEI‘ITIONER: Hemant Kamar Shanna, sen o£ Shri Lakhanlal shama. aged about 31 years, Sub Engineer, Munieipal Corporaticm, \ RaipurJ ’ Vs. RESPONDENES: 1. State of Madhya Pradesh thrcugh the Seeretary, Daparment of Kaocal Self Govexnment, Vallabh ‘7 Bhavan, Bhogyal. 2.‘ Aaministratcr, Municipal Corporatiqr. Raipur. P$ITIDN UNDER AEICIES 225/227 9F TEE CONS?ITUTION OF INDT& I‘OR ISSUE m? APQRDPRIATE WRIT. DIRECTION OR OmER. y‘amww ( ”nu“ . .,... E EHGH COURT OF CHHATI‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. N0. 3751 0f 1992 Pstitioner Hemant Kumar Shanna Versus Respontlems State of Madhya Pradesh (110W Chhattisgarh) 8n another SB; Hon’ble Mr. Justics Satish K. Agnihctri, J Shn' Sanjay Agarwai, Advocate for the pctitioncr. Shn‘ Sushi} Dubey, Govt. Adv0cate for the respondent No. 1. Shxi H. B. Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Shn' Pankaj Agaiwal, Advocate for the respondent No.2. O R D E R ( Passeo m3 ih's §gth iiay of February, 20(37} The following erder of the Court is paesed by 3atish K. mihotsi, J. 1. The petitioner whiie working as Sub Engineer in Municipal Corporaiion, Raiym‘ was trailsferred to Bhopal on the same ierms aid eoaditiona vide impugned tranefer order dated 20. 10. 1992 (Annexure P/7). 2. This Court on 16.11. 1992 passed the interim order that if the peh‘tioner was not already relieved, the operation of the impugried order should remain stayed. 8. It is well settled pn'noiple of law that transfer is an incident of Service and it is for the emeloyer to decide as to Where a iiartic'ular officer/employee be posted keepiiig in View public interest as well as administrative exigeney. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved malafide, non— comiietence of authon'ty {kissing the transfer order and transfer tinder not being in conformity with the miles and regulations, 4. Be that as it may, with the passage of time this petition has become infi'uetuons as period of transfer is not apelicable forever. The respondents are at liberty to pass approptiate orders keeping in View the public interest and administrative eXigency. 5. in View? of the above, this petition stands disiiosed of. No onlei’ as to costs, Sty- SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI Judge Thakur