Petitioner ResDonclents GOURT W CHHAmSGARH: BILASPUR Writ Petition (Sl No. 7654 of 2007 Prince Kumar Mishra, S/o. Shrr K.P. Mishra, aged about 32 years, R/o. PRT Qtr.No. B-750, Yamuna Vihar, Bloek - 3, P.0. Jamnipati, Korba (CG). Versus 1) Vice President, D.A.V. Conege, Managing Committee, New Dethi. 2) Regional Director, DAV Pubtic Schools, M.P. C.G., Zone -1, HUDCO, Bhi(ai. 3) Prineipal, DAV Public School, SECL, Gevra, Distt. Korba (CG). (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) SB: Hon'bto Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri RajsndraThiyari.counselforthepeBtioner. Shri Ashish Shrivastava, counsel for the rsspondent ORM-ORDER (Passed on 3"i January, 2008) The petitioner while working as teacher in D.A.V. Pubite Schoot, SECL, Gevra, District Korba (CG) was transferred to D.A.V. Puhlic School, Bacheli, Dlstrict Dantewara (CG) on administraUve reasons. The petitionerwas also made enUtled to claim TA/DA. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petittoner chaltenges ttie impugned orderdated 11-9-2007 (Annexure P/7) on the ground thatttie petitioner is having 40% physical disabil'rty. On queiy as to whether there is any statutoryprovision or any notificatkMi/cireutar which provides for non-transfer of an employee having disability, the petitioner has not produced any material. On perusal of the papera, it appears that due to administrat'ive exigency, the petitioner has been fransferred. 3) lt is well settled principte of law that tran^r is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular raju z officer/employee be posted, kseping in view publte interest as wett as administrative exigency. This court has limited jurisdiction to intetfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved maiafide, non-competence of authority passir^ the transfsr order and transfer order not being in conformity with rules and regulations. The petitioner/employee cannot be permitted to remain at one place forever, by Court orders. 4) The petitioner has not made out any case for interierence t?y Ihis Court in the presenttransfer. 5) For the reasons and as a result, this petition is dismissed summarily. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge T't