4?? \ . \. .,,; ” @W‘w wgaliw iN THE HIGH COLRT OF CHI-VXT'HSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. ‘7 S ‘242005 PEHTIONER // Thakur Ram Khare, Slo Late mi Nathuram Khare, Aged about 56 years, Working as Secretary, Krism' Lpaj Mandi Sarntl Plthora District Mahasamm (c G) ‘ " - VerSJs— ‘i. $ate of Chhattisgarh, RE$PONDEW3 f : Wmgh the Semetary, Dapartmam of Agricuiture, Mantralaya, D.KS. Blmwan, Raipur (ca). G1hattisgarh Rajya Krishi \Apdan Board, “through its Managing Director, mam Ganj Mandi Parisar, Raipur (C.G.). The Deputy Director (lncharge) Aministration, Omanisgarh Rajya Krishi “pdan Board, Purani Ganj Mand Parisar, Raipur (C.G.). Shri G. L. Agarwal, Mandi Nrikshak, mcharge Secretary Kn'shi Upaj Mandi Saniti, Pithora, District— Mahasammd (Ga). . , R ILE a CONSTITUTDN OF lNDlA FOR ISSUANCE OF AI’SUITABLE WRiTmlREGTlON OR ORDER 1N THE MATFER TO DD THE \‘Jusnca @T HjgH COURT OF cHHATTiSGARH AI EILASPUR WP, N9. 752 ¢f 2005 Thakur Ram Khan Versus Respondents State of Chhamarh & others SB: Hon'bie Mt. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. J Shri Vinay Pandey, Advacate for me petitioner. Miss Deepali Pandey, Panel Lawyer fa! the respondents No. 1 to 3. PeWoner o R D E R ( Passed on this 26‘“ day of Februavy 2007) The followmg cider of the Court Is owed by Saush K. Annthom J 1 The pehttonet white working as Secretary. Knsht Upaj Mend: Samni Plthota. Dnstnct — Mahasamund was ttansfen'ed to Batoda Bazar, Raipur on the same terms and conditions Vida impugned transfer order dated 28.2.2005 (Annexure PM). , 2. This Court vide interim order dated 14.3.2005 granted stay of the impugned order, till the next date of hearing. 3. Be that as it may, with the passage of time mis petition has beoome infructuous as period of transfer is not applicable forever. At this point of time there is no question to examine the validity of me transfer order. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in View the pubiic interest and administi alive exigency, without insisting on compliance of the impugned transfer order. 4. it is well settied principle of law that transfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular ofticeriemployee be posted keeping in View pubiic interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited iurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved maiafide, non~competence of authority passing the danger 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. ' Sd'l. Satish K. Agniimtri {Judge ‘ Thakur