?• 'W -THR .9 S.S'^ ^.£. LT EO, ^-364- /: ion unnerArtiele 226./227 oftlieCoastitntion oflndial ^ Jai Lal Dewaiigan, S/o Lachchulal Dewangan, aged about 46 years, at oresent workiag as Patwari, Patwrari Hatka no. 39 Ctupawand, Talisil office ICuadagaos, Dis 1(^ ICuadagaos, Distt. Bastar, C.G. G0?> S9^ B^^ f 1] StatepfC}iliattisRarh,throuffhthe SecretaTv, Revenue Department , D.K.S. ^ ^ Bllawaji.RaipurlC.G.j >?'.T^^I-~~':V:;"-^-~-"--;1"';" . • ' Raipur, Distt. RaiDUr .^^~^ ^''/'^•^- /y The Comsiissioner, Land Record, ^^ex' L-finattis iC.U. /"3'j The Collector Bs-star at Jagddalpur Distt. Bastar, C.U. Tahsildat- Kotidagaon, Distt. Bastar, C.G. Sujlt Kuinar Sheel, at present working as Patwari a± Patwa.ri Halfca- No.li Kotpad, Tahsil offlce Kondagaon, Distt. tsastar, c.(j, »TT ^-f^f^9^3 AR.TIG - ^ . . . CtE.226/227 OF. >F ff lAMUS. :ORDE] ol >. oeuu.oneis i INIil As stated:' in the cause title above, Vi s ot tlie Bablu HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No. 4964 of2005 Petitioner Jai Lal Dewangan Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Mr. Vishnu Koshta, Advocate forthe petitioner. Mrs. Anju Ahuja, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 4/State. ORDER (Passed on this 1 st day of Mareh, 2007) 1. The petitioner, white working as Patwari at Pafrfrari Halte No. 29, Chipavand, Tahsil Office, Kondagaon, was transferred to Patwari Halka No. 10, Kotpad, TahsiF Office, Kondagaon, on the same terms and conditions vide impugned transfer order dated 16.9.2005 (P/1). 2. This Court, vide interim order dated 7.10.2005, has stayed the effect and operaUon of the impugned order dated 16.9.2005 till the next date of hearing. By virtue of the interimorder, the petitioner has continued on the same 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 applicable forever. At this point of time there is no question to examine the validity of the 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 we!l settled principls of law that transfer is an incidencs of ssrvice 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 interfere only in the case of proved malafide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. 5. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 6. Consequently, M. (W.)P. No. 4007/2005, application for grant of interim relief, stands disposed of. '—~~~, , SdA/,,'; •'''•-', SatishK.Agnaiotri j t :' :;'Judge' : ,, l