,^l IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.) WRTT PETITION N0. £?o^2- OF 2004 BETWEEN Shiv Mani Tiwari S/o Tirath Raj Tiwari, Aged About 48 Years, Assistant Teacher, posted at Magatma Gandhi Kanya Ashram, Chhindgarh, District Dantewada (C.G.) PETITIONER •<^~ ..^'^ \.^ ^-•'' v.?--' K^"y'^x' y.^v !^^y AND 1. 2. '3. 4. 5. •^c. i° The State ofChhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department ofScheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Building, Raipur (C.G.) Collector, Tribal Development, Dantewada (C.G.) Mata Rukhmani Sewa Sansfhan, Through its Secretary Jagadalpur District Bastar (C.G.) Mata Rukhmani Sewa Sansthan Through its Secretary Dimprapal District Bastar (C.G.) Mata Ruldunani Sewa Sansthan Through its President Dimprapal District Bastar (C.G.) RESPONBENT WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SlNGLg_BEN£H^_HQN'BLEMR. SATiSH K. AGNil Petitioner Resoondents fRiT PETiTiON N0.5002 OF veraus iv Mani i The State of Chhattisgarh and others Preseni : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Dwlvsdi, Panej La'.i/yer for th®Stats/ respondents No.1 and 2. None appears for other respondents. (Passed on 23" Day ofFebruaiy, 2007) iy this petition. fited under Artides 226/227 of the ConstituSion of India, the petitioner impugns the order dated 6-10-2004 (P-14), whereby the respondents have rejected the representation of the petitionerfiled in pursuance ofthe order dated 26-8-2004 passsd by this Court 'm Writ Petftion No.2775 of 2004 and 'nave confirmed the transfer of the petltioner from Kanya Aashram, Chhindgarh to Kanya Aashram. Bhusaras. 2. Be that as it may, with the passage of time, this petltion has become infructuous as period of transfer is not applicabte forever. At thss polnt of time, there is no question to examine the vaiidity of the impugned transfer order. However, the respondents are at tiberty to %/*^~ ''7 f, pass appropriate orders keeplng in view the pubtic intersst administrative exigency, without insisting on compiiance of frie impugned transfsr order. 3. tt is weii settled principSe of taw that transfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decided as to where a partlcuiar officer/empioyee be posted keeping in view^public Interest as wel! as administrative exlgsncy. Thls Court has iimsted jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved msfa fide. non-comoetence of authority oassins ttie transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rutes and reautations. 4. In view of the above, fte writ petition siands disposed of. No ordsr as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge