•\-' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0,_43 !<'> OF 2005 PETITIONER: / ^- V^^ _.Kamleshwar Prasad Mishra S/o Q\..--; B--'y...''' Shri Chakodi Prasad Mishra, Age( ^"^' ^ ^~-\ ^- y Yged About- 54 Years, Occupation- Service [Vanpal), R/o- Village and Post Janakpur Thesil-Bharatpur, Disft.-Koria (C.G.) y RESPONDENTfSL VERSUS -0< ^?/ State of Chhattisgarh Through it's Secretary Department of Forest D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) ^^ <9 -^ /.. _ ^.Conservator of Forest .^''" Forest Cirele- Surguja, Ambikapur ^^ , (C.G.) .. DivisionaIForestOfficer ForestDivision- KoriafC.G.) <. Collector Koria Distt. Koria (C.G.) ^..'€ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OFAN APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS / CERTIORARI ETC. OR DIRECTION / ORDER IN THE LIKENATURE. DETAILS OF THE PETITION 'PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIQNER As mentioned in the cause title above. 2. PAFmCULARSOFTHERESPONDENTS toned ih the cause title aboye. ^^9^:^w^ '•^^rF'-g®1'-'^:'" *t»"v t; HK3MCOURTOFGHMATnSGARHATBIl.^PLn% W.P. N0:4&t0of2005 PeSfioner KamlediwarPrasadMishra Vereus Respondents SteteofChhatfisgaih&oBwre SB: Hon'bte Mr. Justtoe Satish K. Agnihotri, J ShriVinay Pand^, Advocate for tte petifioner. Shri ^ay Dvrivedi, Panel Lawyer for tha respmdents/St^. ORDER (Passed on ttus26?tlday of Fdwuay.ZOOT) The ioltovwng onter <rf the Couit is passed by Satish K. Agnihdlrt, J. 1. The petfttoner whlte woridng SG Vanf»lIn the Forest Range, Bahr^i. Distnct- Koria was transferrai to-Sont^, Baflamth|Kir on Ihe same termsand conditions vide imptgned banste' onler datad 95.2005 (Annexure P/1) within the same district. 2. This Court vide interim order dated 5.10^0(8 cllreGted ttat the impi^ined order in respecl<rfthef»tBionerberartghren effectto tlU the nextdateofhearing. 3. Be thatas it may, wiBi the pa^age offfine this peflUon has beeome inftucftMus as period oftran^erts notapplicabteforever.AtBife point of time ttiere is no questton to examine Bie valkUfy «rfthe transfer order. However, the respondents are at Bberty to pass apprepriate orders keeplng in wew tfte pubHe intorest andadministraUve exlgency, without jnsistlng on compliance ofthe impugned transfer oreta'. 4. tt Is welt seffled principleof tew that transfer Is an Inddent of senrtce and it is for the emptoyer to deckle as to where a parUcuter ofReer/emptoyee be po^ed keeping tn view (Hiblte interest as weB as administrative exlgency. This Court has limited jurisdictfon to interfere in flie transfer matter and this Court can Werfere only (n the case ot^ proved malaflde, non-competence of auBiorify passing tto transfer ., order and transfer order not being in conformity wtBi Uie iul and regulatjons. 5. In view of the above, this p^itfon stands disposMl <rf. Qrder as to costs. SdA ; SatishK.Agnifaotri Thakur . , l Judge 1-J