IN THEHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. /2005 " '°' PETmONER %. -¥ •'.'•'''9..-'' y\e.?'' ,-•' ^y x^y ?<?!y '"'•^"' RESPONDENTS ^.GO^ Satish Kumar Pandey, S/o Shri Akshay Kumar Pandey, aged about 41 years,Post - Assistant Director of D.E.O. Raigarh, R/o Pandripani, Raigarh, Tahsil and District - Raigarh, Chhatti^arh. VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: SecFetary Chhatdsgarh Department of School EducsAion, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipiu-, (C.G.) Director, School Education, Raipiir, CKhattisgarh. CoUector, Raigarh. T.C. Patel, S/oSte»' A/crt.tehw»ic'h'L,agedabout 56 years, Post - Adhoc D.E.O. Incharge ftincipal DIET, Pendra, R/o - Peridra, Tehsil Pendra, Distnct ~ Bikuspur, Chhattisgarh. WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTCLE 226y3»7OPTHE GONSCTTUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRTPIN N^TURE OF- CERTlORARI. MANDUMUS PROHIBmONANDOiTHERSUn'ABLEWRITORWRITS DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS. ORDER OR ORD^S: The petitipner above named most respectfiilly submits as uiMfer: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No. 4919 of 2005 Petitioner Satish Kumar Pandey Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Mr. Vineet Pandey, Advocate forthe petitioner. Mr. Vinay Pandey,Panel lawyer for the respondents No. 1 to 3/State. Mr. Sunit Otwani, Advocate forthes respondent No. 4. ORDER ( Passed onthis 1st day ofMarch, 2007) 1. The petitioner, while workingas Assistant Director in District Education OfRce, Raigarh, was transferred to Government Multipurpose Higher Secondary School.Bilaspur as Principal with the same terms and coijfclitions, vide impugned transferorderdated 30.9.2005 (P/1). 2. This Court, vide interim order dated 5.10.2005;stetus quoas regards to the place of posting of th& petitioner as it existed on that day was granted. By virtue ofthe interim order, the petitioner has continued on the same place of posting. 3, Be that as it may, with the passage of lime this petition has become infructuous, as period of transfer is notapplicable forever.At this point of timsthere is no qyestion to examine the "a'idity of the transfer order. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the public interestan8"administrat'ive exigency, without insistingon compliance ofthe impugned transfer order. 4. It is well settled principle of lawthat transfer isan incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular ofRcer/employee be posted keeping in view publte interestas 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 orderand transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. 5. In view of the above, this petition stand? disposed of. No orderas to costs. 6. Consequently, M. (W.)P. No. 3965/2005, application for grantofiriterim reliefandstay,standsdisposedof. !, SdA SatishK.Agnyiotri Judge ,s « a €9