'lV-^Lfl-' IN THE 1»1,P<,STATE AD(vtINISTRATIVE TRIQUNAL AT 3ABALPUR(K.P.) O.A.N03?^00F 2002 % Ratan Ku^iar Qajfahiye, S/0 Late Sri^g^D^Gajbhiys, aged ai3©ut 42 years,F©rest Ranger^ presently p©sterias r?an§©Officer Navagarh^in East Raipur Forest Divi<» P^O»Nava§arfei,Dist^Raipyr,CG^ • • • ft • fe vs 1<, State ©fChattisgarh, Ttar©u§h TNe Secretary Forest Departraent, SQcefceriate^Raipyr (B^G») 2<. Divisi©nalF©restOfficer, East Raipvr F©resfeDivisi©n,Raipur Diatriet Raipur.C.G. APPLICANT •• • »^ RESPONDENTS ...L APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 ©F.ADMINISTRATiyE TRIBUNAL ACT 1985: HN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI. <J. WRIT PETITION (Sl N0.2175 OF 2005 Petitioner : Ratan Kumar Gajbhiye Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh and another Present : None appears for the petitioner. Mr. V.V.S. Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General with Mrs. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on 9th Day of March, 2007) The petitioner, while working as Range Officer, Nawagarh Forest Range. Forest Division Nawagarh was transferred to Forest Management Information System, Raipur on the same terms and conditions, vide impugned transfer order dated 4-10-2(X)2 (Annexure A-9). 2. The Madhya Pradesh Admjnistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, victe interim order dated 18-10-2002, granted stay of the impugned transfer order dated 4-10-2002 (Annexure A-9). 3. Be that as it may, with the passage of time, this petition has become infructuous as period of transfer is not applicable forever. At this point of time, there is no question to examine the validity of the impugned transfer order. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the public interest and administrative exigency, without insisting on compliance of the impugned transfer order. 4. (t is well settled principle of law that transfer js an incident of service and it is for the employer to decided as to where a particular officer/employee be posted keeping in view public jnterest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in th©transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved maSa fide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity wjth the rutes and regylations. 5. In view of the above, this petition stends disposed of. No order as to costs. ——— Sd/- Sadsh K. Agnihotri Judge Subhash