1 -^ IN THE HIGH COTJRT QF JUDICATXmE CH&TTISGARH AT BIIASPUR W.JP, N0^7o5/'2004 PaTITIONER Kunwar.l.al sinha S/» H«fi Rara Sinha, aged ab«ut 45 year-s, Asslstant Teacher. ^/*- Jamri P.0.- Jarkanhar, Bjkst. Rajnandgaan (C.G.) VERSUS RESEQNBENTS 1. State »f Chattisgarh ,*'~^T -v^u^ '... • ' . . - ^•''«\^>W^ ^- ThrBugh Secretary, Departmen't \pv ^vy'\^ :;..; - "'. •— . .- - ...~ . •.'. •• y.fty'^.-^- ^X»ri^\K SchMlEdueatianD.K.S.Bhawan ^" ^NA^ !-~ Raipur (e.G.). y<^ ^ 2. DistrAct Edueatian Officer,; Rajnaigaen 3, Blecte Educati»n pfficer, D»ngargarh 4. Bhanesh Kuaaar Sabu S/»Uaknswn, aged-50 years, Assistant 'Peacher, PriBiary Sclfl, Gapaparkhurd, Bleck Oengargarh, Dist. Rajnandgaen. 5. Raiasai BarsWa, S/»UnknBwn aged- 35 years. Presideat »f Kishan M»rcha. Dongargarh, Dist. Rajnandgaan. E, 8tTION UNBER ABIGLE 226/227 OF THE CONSIIIITFION ^^~^' ::-:^ 1. partlculars »f the Betitianer As mentiaaed ia IShe eause title. 2. Particiilarsaf fche eesBandents As mentrnied in the cause tltle. HtGH COURT QECHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^ SINQLEBENCH : HON'BLE MR^SATISH K. AGNiHOTRI.J. Petitioner WRIT PETITION N0.370SOF 2004 Kunwarial Sinha versus Respondents : State of ChhatB^arh and othere Present : Mr. P.R.PatanfSir, counsef forthe petitioner. Mr. Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyerfor the StaWrsspondentsNo.1 to3. None appears for other r^pondents. ORDER ind (Passed on 22"" Day of Febmary, The petitioner, while working as ^sistant Teacher in Primary School, Paragaonkala, Btock Dongagarh has been transferred to Primary School, Gateparkhurd, Bkack Dongargarh, vide order dated 31-7-2004 (P-1). 2. This Court, vide interim order dated 17-12-2004, directed for maintaining statusquo, as was existing on that day. 3. Be that as it may,with the passage of time, this petition has beeome infmctuous as period oftransfer is not appiieable forever. At ttiis point oTtime;\there is no'quesBon to examine ttie validityofthe Impugned transfer OTder. HowevSr, the respondsnte arsat liberiy to 91llt»..... pass appropriate orders keeplng in view ttie public interest and administrative exigeney, without insisting on eompllance of the impugned transfer order. 4. !t is well settled principle of taw that transfer is an incident of service and it is for ttie employer to decided as to where a jMrticular ofRcer/employee be posted keeping |n view pubtic interest as wel! as administrath/e exigency. This Court has tlmited jurisdicGon to interfere in the transfer matterand this Court can interfere only In the case of proved ma/a ffcfe, non-competenee of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity wUi the rules and regulations. 5. In vlew of ttie above, the writ peUtion slands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^