^- L^..—..—-| ^'[J^ •^ > ....^^ ^^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR WRIT 1>E"ITION N0.^01^ OF 1999 PETITION UKDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PETITIONERs Rakesfo G©rha^ son of SMri Kailash Chand Gorha^ aged 37 years^ ©©Qu^ations@r^i@@ presently posted as Jusiier Auditor,M.P.3tate Mark®ttin» B@ard at Bilasyur^ resident @f C.A. 270/8 Raw Kish©re Nagar^ Bilaspur^ VSRSTJ3 RESPONDENTSs l» ^3. 4, ;n : k The G@vemrpent of M»P<»^ feforou^h Se©retary^departm@nt of Agricultur®,Vallateh b-hawan^ Bho^al ^ The.Managin§ ^ Directer^ Mandi^ M<»P< State Agricultural Marktettimg Beard^Kisars BteawaR, Areaa HJLlls, jail r©:adBhopal^ The Commissioner/Director^ M.andi,M.P.State A®ri@ultural Marketting B©ard,KisanBhawaR, Arera Hills, Jal©r©ad,Bhopal* The Deputy Secretary^ M.V^State and Agrisultural MarkettiR® B@ard, Bit-aByte&Dt-MsionA, Bilaspur. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W,P. No. 2018 of 1999 Petitioner Rakesh Gorha Versus Respondents The Govt. ofM.P. (now C.G.) & others SB: Hon'ble Mr. Jiistice Satish K. Agnihotrt, J Shri Indra Sen Saliu, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the. respondente. ORDER ( Passed on tTiis 19thday ofPehnia^, 2007) The foUowmg order of tlie Court is passed by Satish K. Ags&ihotri, J» 1, The petitioner while workmg as Jiinior Auditor in fhe M. P. State Agricultural Marketuig Board was transferred froni Bilaspur to Jagclalpur OH the same terais smd conditioiis vide impugned transfer orcler dated 25.2.1999 (Aiiiiexure P/7). 2. This Court vide iiiterim order dated 5.5.1999 dirccted that if the petitioner was still coutmumg at Bilaspur he should not be rclieved pursuant to fhe transfer order. 3. It is weU settled principle of law that transfer is an incident of service aiid it is for the eniployer to decide as to where a parficular officer/employee be posted keepmg m view public iuterest as weH as admmistrative exigency. This Coiirt has limited jurisdiction to mterfere m the transfer niatter and this Court caii interfere only in the case ofproved malafide, iion-competeiice. ofauthority passiiig the transfer order and transfer order not beiiig m conformity wifh fhe rules and regulations. 4. Be that as it may, wifh the passage oftuiie this petitioii has becoine infnictLious as period of transfer is not appUcable forcver. The respoiidents are at liberty to pass appropriate orders keepuig in view the pubUc iriterest aad adinuiistrative exigency. 5. In view of fhe above, this petition stands disposed of No order as to costs. -—^ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge