aim nwma n::rg%m mm gmTam armm, tram mogoz v- t-v-‘r-rvrvvr rn-g-vv-r-u-r-r- Tmmza {gan— mm’Tanaa ‘faw .n-‘._ 1. gna afaa mwa ?aum awam mm, {my $Eaav, ‘ awn: $aaT—3i?amz 3. ‘ wa?mrm§ra mTmTfr, gay, ‘faaT—azgar Tafam 3mm“ simiigg 3n%aa Em wan“?! uwnw gig wrrrevrer—r—v‘u—pnvvwrve—rt—er 31} mum mm? wrgu mi gfr Emma crTga 3g 30 am, Era‘m‘fr maa 59 irkm aa. my, {11% nxmriaani Na.. .. Hmzad 19- L u. by 5b!!.‘.-... VHLaj§£I§L §o%istrar, A4. P, Staf£ MEL Tribynai RAIéUR I ' maTEwm a —— —_-—-_-- . . HIGH COU T F HATTISG R ATBL SPUR WP. (S) No. 3503 of 2005 Petitioner Sanieet Kumar Pandey Versus Respondents State cf Chhattisgarh & others SB: Hon’ble Mf. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Shri N. K. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. V. V. S. Murthy, Deputy Advosate Genera! with Smt. Anju Ahuja. Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents/$tate. Thakur O R D E R (Passed on this 9’" day of March. 2007) The following mder of the Ceurt is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri. J_ 1. The petitioner while working as Patwari at Patwari Haika No. 59 Pondi, Seotajpur. District — Surguia was transferred to Patwari Haika No. 43. on the same terms and conditions, vide order dated 23.12.2000 (Annexure A15). The Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunai at Raipur vide interim order dated 15.1.2001 directed to maintain status quo in regard to the position of the petitioner as it was prevailing on 12.1 .2001. By virtue of the interim order the petitioner is continuing at the original piece of posting. 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, without insisting on compliance of the impugned transfer order. 4. lt is well settled principle'of law that transfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular ofticerlempioyee be posted. keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited iurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere oniy iny‘the case of proved malafide. non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in confermity with the rules and regulations. ln View of the above, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. l . l 7 Sd/- ‘ ‘ Satish K.Agnihotri ‘ Judge 'l w l ll l: r r ‘