nn'g B8^CT ^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0r5-&^'=' /2004 •^"S^^'g^^?^' iilSEWxC? PETITIONER •^Tikaram Nishad, son of Shri 'Tularam Nishad, aged about 55 years, Assistant Teacher, Primary School - Budiya, Vikas Khand - Tamnar, Distt. Raigarh (CG) RESPONDENTS .- c ^"'.^ 'l ^^^ !>. 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through : the Secretary, Department of Tribal , Welfare, Dau • Kalyan Singh , Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2. The Commissioner, Department of Tribal ' Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Collector, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) 4. The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal • Welfare, Raigarh (C.G.) ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI. MANDAMUS ETC. AND FOR APPROPRIATE ORDER / ORDERS, DIRECTION / DIRECTIONS. HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR S1NGLE_BENCH_: _ HQNZBLE MR.SATiSH K. A Petitioner Respondents ?R!T PETITiON N0,5045 QF 20Q4 versus TiKaram Nisha State of Chhattisgarh and others te^^ Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Ltkarsh Vsrma, Dsputy Government Adyocats for ths State/respondents. (Passed on 22I1° Day of February, 2007) The petitioner, whiie worlang as Assistant Teac'ner in Primary Schooi, Budiya, Block Tamnar was transfsrred to Primary School, Rabo, BSock Tamnar within the same district, vide order dated 31-7-2004 (P-2). The petffioner moved this Court by a writ petltion, being Writ Petition No.2997 or 2004. This Court, vide order dated 17-9- IOQ4 (P-1'). aranted libertv to the oetltionsr to make a representatson befors the competsnt authority. It was further directed ttiat the same wouid be decided in accordance wjth iaw as early as possible, preferably withln a period of six weeks from the date of recelpt of tt»e competent authority, i.e., the CoSlector (Tribai Devetopment), Ralgarh, vide order dated 29-11-2004 (P-4), dismissed the representation dated 28-9-2004 of the petitioner on the ground ihat his transfer was made on beina found him surolus. The same cannot fae cancslled. The petitioner has filed this oetition challenQina the validity of the order dated 29-11-2004 (P-4) and the impuaned transfer order dated 31-7-2004 (P-2). 3. The smpugned transfer order was'passed on 31-7-2004. No stay was granted by this Court. The petitioner must have joined the new pisce of posting. 4. Be that as it may, with the passage of time, this petition has become infructuous as oeriod of fransfer is not aooHcabie forever. At this Doint of time, there is no auestion to examine the validity of the impugned transfer order. However, ths respondents are at iiberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view She pubiic interest and administrative exigency, without insisting on compSiance of the ' imousned transfer order. It is wsli settted orinciste of law that transfer is an incident of seroice and it is for the emsiover to decided as to where a particular officer/empioyee be posted keeping in view public interest as wel! as adminlstrative exiaency. Thss Court has limlted iurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and thls Court can interfere only in the case of proved inaia ffde, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not beina in conrormitv with the ruies and reaulations. ^spa; ^ o. In vtew of the above, the writ petitton stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- satish K. Agmhotri Judge