<\ofll^ c- ETi .n. ••t^-B-a .f. fL^V^S'-S yO^^-362. f 1& ^A -fXAS-A' 236, soa 01 Iflflls a! .o°'y ^"Tef Prakash Pande}'", aged ab'out 40 yrs S/'o Shri Harishchandra Pandey, at present working as Patwari, Patwari Halka no. 18A Kondagaon, Tahsil ofEce Kondagaon, Distt. Bastar. C.G. €^^ ^^/] 4^'-'" ^. t*- ^s—t'S '" ^l ^cy^? ^%<'y State of CtahattisgaTh, Secretanr, Revenue De Bhawaii, Raipur (C.G.i hroughthe >armient, D.K-S, The Coinaiissioner, Chliattisgarh, Raipur, (C.G.) The Colteetor Bastar Distt, Basteu-. C.G. Distt. Raipur at Jagddalpur, Talisildar C,G. K-ondaga-on, Distt. Bastar, TaIisildg-T Kestik&l, Distt. Basta.r, G.G. Ashok Singh Thaxur, at pres&nt vTOrkiag a.s Patwari at Patwari Hatka No.18 Kopra, Tahsil offiee Keshkal.. C.G. . S-^^L, .E^S^i. s. ry 1. sv€-f-fa As stated ini ;ause tltte above, Bablu HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No. 4963 of 2005 » • . ' Petitioner Tej Prakash Pandey Versus Respondents StateofChhattisgarh&others SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Mr. Vishnu Koshta, Advocate forthe pefflioner. Mrs. Anju Ahuja, Dy. Govt. Advocate forthe respondents No. 1 to 4/State. ORDER (Passed on this 1st dayOfMarch, 2007) 1. The petitioner, while working as Patwari at Patwari Halka No. 18 A, Kondagaon, Tahsil Office, Kondagaon, was transferred to Patwari Halka No. 18, Kopra, Tahsil Office, Keshkal, on the same terms and conditions vide impugned transfer order dated 16.9.2005 (P/1). 2. This Court, vide interim order dated 7.10.2005, has stayedthe effect and operation of the impugned order dated 16.9.2005 titl the next date of hearing. By virtue of the iriterim order, the petitioner has Gontinued on thesame placeof posting, . 3. 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 quesfion to examine the validityof the transfer order. However, the respondents are at liberfyto pass appropriate orders keeping in view the public interest and adminjstrative exigency, without insisting on compliance oftheimpugned transferorder. 4. It is well settted principle of law that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decjde as to where a particular officer/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 this Court can interfere only in the case of proved malafide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in confbrmity with the rules and regulations. 5. In view of the above, this petition stends disposed of. No order as to costs. 6. Consequently, M. (W.)P. No.400Ci?2005, application forgraht ofinterim relief, stands disposed of. ^^~—7---^ SdA / . 'f >-.. sati^^ihotri i