W THE mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.NO. 3^6^/2004 PETITIONER ^yy -*** .<v' ' > i*" -.'s^' .** ..••' .^" ••-y yy RESP^M§ENTS ^•y/ ,^A<?' ..•••" Son Chand Banjare S/o Late Shiv Prasad Banjare aged about 54 years Occupation Deputy Collector R/o Civil Line Balod Dist. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1. TheStateofC.G. Through the Secretary of Department of General Administration D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. CollectorDurg(C.G.) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF Tjffi CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN TEiE NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARI ETC OR ANY OTHER DLRCTIONS OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE W THE MATTER ^.iBtSa;3Ej^^Ri| f]|]|!i.!;i]!illl ,•*-.. 71% 1^ Bablu HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No. 3262 of 2004 Petitioner Son Chand Banjare Versus Respondents The State of Chhattisgarh & another SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K.^gnihotri, J Mr. Gouri Shankar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Deepali Pandey, Panel lawyer for the respondents/State. ORDER (Passed on this 27* day of February, 2007) The following order ofthe Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. In the present case, the transfer order dated 29 July, 2004 (P/1) is under challenged, but no interim relief was granted by this Court. The petitioner must have joined the transferred place. At this stage, after a lapse of more than two years, it is not necessary to examine the validity ofthe transfer order. 2. Be that as it may, with the passage of Ume this petition has become infructuous, as period of transfer is not applicable forever. At this point of time there is no question to examine the validity of the transfer order. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the public interest and administrative exigency, without insisting on compliance ofthe impugned transfer order. 3. It is welt settled principle of law that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide 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 witb 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 conformity with the rules and regulations. 4. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- satish K. Agnihotri Judge