IINGLE RI"^C£f ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. -Sc^>4< QF 2005 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^ ^^ ^" «....-%%?'?"" ^o-"^^.^'" ^yy" ^" ^^y^':^- ^%" -t'_; ^'^-^ ^ ( Sharad Kumar Shrivastava, S/o Late Shri J. L. Shrivastava, aged about 52 years, Occupation-Draftsman, Deptt. of Mining, R/o Behind Amrish Kirana- Stores, Indira Chowk, Shyam Nagar, Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS 1. State ofChhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Deptt. Of Mining, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Director, Deptt. Of Mining, Sonakhan Bhawan, Ring Road No.l, Village Purena, Post Ravigram, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). , 3. The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). ^.4. The Mining Officer, Deptt. Of Mining, Collectorate, Mining Section, Raipur (C.G.). .5. The Assistant Mining Officer, Deptt. Of Mining, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, (C.G.).. 6. D. N. Pandey, Draftsman, Deptt. Of Mining, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.GJf WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR /T^l W.P. No,b946pf'200S Petitioner Sharad Kumar Shnvastava Versus Respondents State ofChliattisgarh & ofhera SB: Honrble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotrl, J Shri Devesh Chandra Venna, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Snit. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 5, O R DE R ( Passed on this 1st day ofMarch, 2007) Thc follo^vmg ot-dcr oftlic Couit is passcd by Satish K. Agffihotei, J. 1. The petitioner while workmg as Draftsman ia the Mining Departaient at Raipur was traasferred to Raigarh, on fhe same terms aud conditions vide impugned traasfer oxder dated 22,11.2005 (Annexure P/2). 2. This Ck>urt vide mterini order dated 2.12.2005 stayed fhe effect aiid operation of the impugned transfer oider. By virtue of fhe mterim o£der,thepetitioner has continued at fhe origmal place ofjx^sting. 3. Be that as it Hiay^ with fhe passage of time this petition has become mfnictuous as period of teansfer is not applicable forever. At this pomt of tmie there is no questiou to examiae the validity of fhe traRsfer order. However, the respondents are at Uberty to pass appropriate ordere keeping m view the pubUc interest aud admiuistrative exigency, without nisistiiig on compliance of the earlier traasfer order, 4. It is well settted principle of law that tiBnsfer is aii mcident of service it is for fhe employer to decide as to where a particular officer/esiiployee be posted keepiag in view public interest as weH as adiamistrative exigency. This Court lias limited jurisdiction to iiiterfere m the traasfer matter and tliis Court can interfere only in tlie case of proved malafide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and traiisfer order not being ni confomiity with the rules a&d regulations, 5. In view ofthe above, fhis petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Thakur Satish K. Agnihotri Judge