s% HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR WritPetttion (si No. 3996 of 2005 ADplicant Versus Respondents 2. 3. Ku. Archana Tiwari D/o Shri B.P. Tiwari Asstt. Teacher, Govt. Boys Primary School Panduka Distt. Raspur StateofChhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department ofAdivisi Vikas, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) Asstt. Commissioner Adivasi Vikas Raipur Principal Govt. Boys Primary School Pankuka SB Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri. . Present: Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate forthe respondents/State. ORDER (Passed on this 16 day of March, 2007} 1. The petitioner, while working as Assistant Teacher at Giris Primary School, Pankuka, was transferred to Primary School, Kutena, on the same terms and conditions vide impugned transfer order dated 14.9.2001 (A/1). 2. The Madhya Pradesh State Adminisfrative Tribunal, Bench at Raipur, vide interim order dated 18.10.2001, directed to maintain status quo in regard to the position of the petitioner as was prevaiiing on 10.10.2001. By virtue of the interim order, the petitioner is continuing at the original place of posting. 3. Be that as it may, with the passage of time this petition has become infructuous, as period of transfer is not appiicable forever. At this point of time there is no question to examine the validity of the transfer order. However, the respondents are at iiberty to pass Amit appropriate orders keeping in view the public interest and administrative exigency, without insisting on compliance of the impugned transfer order. 4. It is well settled principle of law that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular ofRcer/employee be posted keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter and this Court can entertain judiciai review only in the case of proved malafide, non- competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the mles and regulations. 5. in view of the above, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. ___-— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge