^^-— ^4' l^ \' u-^.. IN THE HIGH COURT OF XIDICATURE AT BILASPUR, C.G. WMT PETITION N0. 2^~[c> 0004 (Petitiosi under article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India) PETITIONER : ^ ShaliidSheViS/oSheyiSattar,agedaboBt48 .rf^cA years, at present working as a S^b Divisional (^*<S^ ^* Officer' Of&ce of Executive Gigmeer, Water ..f^y ^^ p-'^y ^'J^ >'' VEK5US l^y ^ Resowces Division, Rajnandgaoii, C.G. R/o 140 Jawahar Nagar, Durg, C.G. RESPONDENTS 1) State of ChhalUsgarh ttsroiigii the C'hief Secretary, Water Resources Dqsartm.ent, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, C.G. 2) Engineer in. Chief, Water Resoiirces Depaatment, Rsdpur, C.G. Executive Etigmeer, Water Resources Depaitment, Rajnandgaon Division, Distt. Rsgnaindgaon, C.G. Executive Etigmeer, IInd Water Resoiu-ces Departmeid, Raipur Division, Distt. Raapiu:, C.G. te^\ ^"""'s ^ .1 5) D.K. Slirivastava, Assistant Engweer (Rural) m the Of&ce of Executive Engineer IInd W^er Resouices Division, Distt. Raipisr, C.G. ^TOT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE ^ , ^JCONSTmJTION QF mmAIQRISSU^^ ""---^.<\ ^ ^^" WRITS, ORDERS AND DIRECTONS ETC. ._.i.. ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTtSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No. 3570 of 2004 Petitioner ShahidShekh Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Shri Vishnu Kostha, Advocate for the petitioner. Miss Deepali Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. ORDER ( Passed on this 26th day of February, 2007) The foltowing order of the Court js passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner white working as Sub DJvisional Officer in the Water Resources Department at Rajnandgaon was fransferred to Raipur, on the same terms and conditions vide impugned transfer order dated 23.9.2004 (AnnexureP/5). 2. This Court vide interim order dated 1.11.2004 djrecfed to allow the petitloner to continue, till the next date of hearing, if not already relieved. By virtue of the jntersm order the petjtioner must have continued on the same place of posting. 3. Be that as it may, with the passage of ttme this petitjon has become jnfructuous as period of transfer is not appJicable forever. At this point of tjme Siere is no question to examine the vaSklify of the transfer order. However, the respondente are at dberty to pass appropriate orders keepi'ng in viewthe pubtic jnterest and administrative exigency, wlthout insisting on compSiance ofthe impugned transfer order. 4. It Is wel! settled principte of !aw that transfer js an incident of servtee and rt is for the employer to dedcte as to where a particular officer/employee be posted keeping in view public interest as welt as admjnjstratjveexigency. ThJs Court has limited jurisdiction to intertere with the transfer matter and thjs Court can interfere only in the case of proved malafide, non-competence of authority passjng the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with fte niles and regulations. 5. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of.No order as to costs. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge