BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT‘T JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION Na. $3M % A998 Petitionegg- 1.sanjeev Beohar s o Shri B.S.Beohar, aged aboat 38 yrs. Executive Engineer:(civil)a ZoP.K.Verma, s/o Shri Laxman Pd°Verma, aged about 46 years, Executive Engineer(civil)o fa» Both posted at special Area DeveloPment Authorityh Bhilai-Durg Supel Tah— and Distt~Durg (M.P.) Vs- 1aState of Maahya Pradesh through—Secretary, Housing and Environment Deptt. Mantralaya.Vallabh-Bhawan Bhopal)?MoP.)' Respondents— 2oAdministrabr, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai. Tah~ and digtt-Durg (M.P.) 3.8ecretary, Local self Governmnt, e Mantralaya,Bhopal(MP) Mantralaya,Va11abh Bhawan, Bhopal (MP) e 4uAdditional Secretary, Town Administration And Develonment Department: Govt.of f’hP. State of MaPu PETITEON UNDERAETICLES_§26 /227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J None appears for the petitioner. s. Deepaii Pandey. Panei lawyer for the responents/State. ( Passed on this 27'“ day of February, 2007) The following order o he Court is passed by tish K. Agnihotri, J. f t Sa 1. In the present ase, transfer order dated 2.9.98 (P/5) is under challenged, but no interim relief ws granted. The petitioner must have joined the transferred place. At this stage, after a lapse of more than ei e ght years, it is not necessary to examine the validity of th transfer order. 2. Be that as it may, with the passage of time this petition has become infructuous, as period of transfer is not applicable forever. At this point of time there is no question to examine the validity of the transfer order. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the public interest and administrative exigency, witout insisting on compliance of the impned transfer order. 3. lt is well settled princite of law tha transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide as to were a particular ofdcer/employee be posted keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter and his Court can interfere only in the case of proved malafide, non-competence of uthority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules an regulations. 4. ln view of the above, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to ’ Scu- costs. Satish K. Agnihotri ‘Judge Bablu HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. No. 5348 of 1998 M d ORDER c 6 a h ug p t h t a d Petitioners Sanjeev Beohar and another Versus Respondents The State of Madhya Pradesh & others