@ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AI BILASPUR w. P. No. 83% /2004 PETITIONER 1, Rewa Ram Sahu , S/o Shri Pyari Ram Sahu aged about 39 years Occupation — Constable No. 194 P.S. D.K.P. Line Distt. Kanker (C.G.) VERSUS 1, Th6 State of CG. Through the Secretary of Home Police Deptt. + D‘K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2. Director Gcnerai of Police Raipur Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 3. Superintendent of Police mJQawkw Distt. W Kctwkw WRIT PETI’BbN UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDTA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE ' NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARI ETC OR ANY OTHER DIRCTIONS OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE INVTHE MATTER 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR .. .. ... §INGLE §ENCH : H6N‘ELE MR §§TISH K. AQNiHOTRi, J. WRIT PETITION N0.396$ OF 2094 .. Bv this netition, riled under Articies 2261227 of the Constitution of india, the petitioner impugns the order dated 22-9~2GO4 {P—G), whereby the respondents have rejected the representation of the petitioner fried in pursuance of the order dated 20-8-2004 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2568 of 2004 and have confrrmed the transfer order dated 31 -7-2004 (P4). The petitioner has been ordeted to compiy with the transfer order dated 31 -7-2004 (P4). 2. Be that as it may, with the passage of time, this petition has become infructuous as period of transfer is not appiicabie forever. At this point of time, there is no question to examine the vatidity of the impugned transfer order. However. the respondents are at iiberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the public interest and i i i i Petitioner Rewa Ram Sahu Versus Resnondents : The sate of C.G. and others Present : Mrs. Renu Kochar. counsei for the petitioner. Ms. Deepaii Pandey, Panel Lawyer for the Stare/respondents. ORDER (Pa$sed on 22’“ Day of February; 2007) administrative exigency! without insisting on compiiance of the impugned transfer order. 3. it is we“ setkied principie of law that transfer is an incident of service and it i5 for the empioyet to decided as t0 where a particuiar ufiiceiiempieyee be p¢sted keeping in View pubiic interest as weil as administi'ative exigency. This Couit has iimited jurisdiction to interfeve in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere oniy in the case of proved maie fider non-campetence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the ruies and reguiations. 4. in View of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- satish K. Agnihou‘i; Judge