B c P<ioof IN 1 ^w •T' / IN THE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition N0. ^3L^ 12005 PETITIONER ^^^s -^^/f ^%@'/ ^•"^-y^.-;'' ^•"^•'^" ^^" •^- /. Smt. Clara Kujur aged about 50 years, W/o. Shri James Kujur Assistant Teacher posted at Primary School Domnapara, R/o. Manendragarh, District Korea (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS y/:1. State of Chhattisgarh Through : Secretary General Admiriistrative Department Mantralaya D.K.S., Bhawan , Raipur (C.G-) _ 2. The--C6^^^^|^^me"h Korea, District Korea (C.G.) 3. Block Development Officer Korea, District Korea (C.G.) ^" WRITPETITIONU/A 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUtlON OF INDIA PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER As given in the cause title . PAitTICULARSOFTHER_ESPOHIlENTS As given in the cause title . i!'-i ^ti'i^n--''^?;"-1"-8';;:-^-^ m •\--- m. SA ^ 1!: 'l.i.t f'f y\ fi:.\ III1 :S:.-! ^ iWt.l ^> ••-+- lii'ii1 iablu! HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No.4916of2005 Pefitioher Smt. Clara Kujur Versus Respondents StateofChhattisgarh&otherS SB: Mon'ble Mr. Jusfice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Mr. B.L. Dembra, Advocate for the petitioner. h4r. SatishGupta, Dy. Govt. Advocate forthe respondents/State. ORDER (Passed on this 1stday of March, 2007) 1. The petitioner, while working as AssistentTOTcherin Primary School, Dompara, Block Manendragarh, vras fransferred to Primary School, Canwaridad, Block Khadgaon, on the sameterms and conditions vide impugnedtransferorderdated6.9.20( (AnnexureP/1). 2. This Court vide interim order dated 5.10.20C^ directed that the impugned order dated 06.0S.2(X)5 in r^pect of the petitioner be not given effect to, till the next date of hearing. By virtue of the interim order.thepetitionerhascontinuedonthesameplacepfposting. 3. Be that as it may, w'th the passage of time this petition has become infructuous, as period of transfer is not applicable forever. Atthis point of time there is no question to examine the validity of the transfer order. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass approprjate orders keeping in view the public interestand administrative exigency, withoutinsisting on compliance ofthe impugned transferorder. 4. It is well settled principle of law that transfer is an incidence of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular ofRcer/eroployee be posted keeping inview public interestas swll as administrative exigency. This Court has limtted jurisdiction to fnteifere with the transfer matter and this Court ran interfere only in the case of proved malafide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformitywith the rules and regulations. 5. In view of the above, this petition stands yisposed of.No order as to costs. ; ! . ! ~ — ~_ '\ SatishK.Agnyiotn "in]IFfiTminlwi'-T"-.l[i:-53; -^••5