HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (s) No. 3822 of 2005 Petitioner Respondents Versus :1. 2. 3. Pritam Singh Sahu, Aged about 38 yeara, S/o Shri Manbodhi Ram Sahu, Assistant Teacher, Government Primary Schoot, Kajlashnagar, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Secretary School Education Department/Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Djstrict Education Officer, District-Durg(C.G.). Block Education Officer, Block-Durg, District-Durg (C.G.). SB Hon'ble Shri Satlsh K. Aanihotri. J. Present: Mr. S.K. Thomas, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel lawyerforthe respondents/State. ORDER (Passed on this 13th day of March, 2007) 1. The petitioner, while working as Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Kailashnagar, was transferred to Primary School, Khurdipar No. 1, on the same terms and conditions vide impugned transfer order dated 6.9.2001 (P/1). 2. The Madhya Pradesh State Admjnjstrative Tribunal. Bench at Raipur, vide interim order dated 24.9.2001, directed to maintain status quo in regard to the position of the petitioner as was prevailing on 19.9.2001. By virtue of the interim order, the petitioner is continuing at the orlgjnal place of posting. 3. Be that as it may, with the passage of time ttiis petition has become infructuous, as period of transfer is not applicable forever. At this point of time there is no question to examine the vaiidity of the transfer order. However. the respondents ar©at liberty to pass appropriate ordere keeping in view ttie public jnterest and administrative exigency, without insisting on compliance of the impugned transfer order. 4. It is well settled princjpte of law that transfer is an jncidence of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a partteutar officer/employee be posted keeping in view public interestas well as adminjstrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer matter and this Court can enteriain judicial review only in the case of proved malafide, non- competence of authority passing the teansferorder and fransfer 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/- Satish K. Agnihotri Thakur Judge