H!dH_COURT OP.JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR ,e Hoia?ble K. J. Petitioiier W. P. No» 1789 OF Karmuraiii Bhagat, S/o, Shri Budhram Bhagat, aged about 38 years, Assisteiit Teacher at PriBiary School, Belsuiiga, Block Kunkiui, DistrJct-Jashpur (C.G.), Respondents Versus : 1. 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through . Secretary, PriTiiaiy Education, Tiibal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawaii, District-Raipiir (C.G.). Sliri Heroion Ekka, Assistant Teacher, Piioian^ School, Asta, Block Bagicha, DistdctJashpur (C.S.). Shri J.K, Shashtd^ counsel for fhe petitioner. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Paael lawyer for tlie respondent No, 1/ State, None for fhe respondent No. 2 (6th February, 2006} 1, The petitioner, who was workiiig as Assistaiit Teacher at Piimary School Belsunga, Block Kunkuri, Distrct-Jashpur was. trarisferred vide order dated 19.5.2003 (Aniiexiire Pn-2) to Prim.aiy School, Asta, Block Bagicha, District-Jashpur. 2. The petitioner has filed this petitioii chaJlengiag the mipugned traiisfer order on the ground that transfer has been niade without his conseiit on his own expenses, If the petitioner was tran.sferred dzie to adm-iiiistrative exigency, flie petitioner was enti-tled to expenses for coniplyiag wifh the inipugued transfer order, In tlie. present case, the treiisfer was raade @-?r^—a~ witliout conseiit. of the petitioner aiid 011 ttie other hand as such he was deprived oftraiisfer. expenses, 3, This Court, vide order dated 24.6.2003, graiited stay of operation of the ieipiigned traiisfer order datecl 19.5.2003 (Aiiuexure P-2). The petitioner has coutiiiued on the saaie post by virtue of fhe iaterim order dated 24.6.2003 till date, At tliis stage, there is. 110 pouit ia examiauig the validity offhe inipugned trajisfer orde.r, as fhe petitioner has already got the fiiial reliefby way of iiiteiim order itself, . . 5, It is well se.ttled priiiciple oflaw that traiisfer is an iiicident of sendce and it is. for tlie eniployer to decide as to where a particulaT officer/employee be postecl ia the • iaterest of adm..iiiistration aad public. This Coiu'1 has liio.ited jurisdiction in trausfer iiiatters and this Coiirt can Hiterfere ouly io. tlie case of proved nialajide, nou-conipetence of the authorities passing the trajiisfer order, aad order not being i.u confoniiity with the rales and regiilations, In tlie facts of this case, it is e.xpected fhat fhe respondents/aufhorities will iiot iasist upon coniptiance oftihie iiapugned traasfer order da-ted 19,5,2003. 6, In view of tlie above, the petitiou is dismissed, However, the respondents/autliorities are at Ubert^- to pass appropriate order as to the postmg of fhe petitioner in the public uiterest aiid adm.inistrative exigeucy. No order as to costs. Bablu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge