IN T$ HIGH GGURT OF JUDIGATURE AT BIItASPUR: GHMTTISGARH. ,4 ”4. wRIT mTIErIDN m. 2%6' [2003 PETITIOBER 3 Miss Sanjula Shanna, D/e Dr. Vijay Kunar Sharma, Aged abaut 53 years, “ProJec‘i Officer, Integrated Child Dgyarlepmem: ProJect, Balgda, Dist.Janjgir(G.G Versus ‘ $9. MSPGMEMSa Staw'ze of Ghhattisgarh Through: The Secretary, Depamment 0£ Wmen and Child Develapment and Secial Welfare, bkntralaya, D.K.S. milding, hip“? ( c.Go )0 uryakaniz Gupta , Project Officer, Integrated child Develapmem Projeet, Sarangarh, Dist. Raigarh ( (LG. ).., wRIT PETITIoN UNDER ARTIGLES 226/2’§;‘W$F // THE commmmw 6F 1i ‘ IMHA. 1). Particulars 9f the Petitianer :- Aa shawn in‘the Cause-title. 2). Particulars 9f the» Respandenh As shown in the Cause-title. ) / S ' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wm't Petition No. 2’?06 (3f 2003 Peh‘tioner: Miss Sanjula Shanna Versus Respondents: State of Chhattisgarh 85 another single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sat-ish K. Agnihotri. Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner Shri Paukaj Shn'vastava, Panel lawyer for the Resp dent No. 1. None. for mspondent No. 2. ORAL ORDER ( 8th Februaxy, 2006) The following order of the Court was passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner was working on the post of Project Ofwer, in the Integrated Child Development Project, Baloda, District- danjgir Champa. Vide order dated 26.82003 (Aenexure P/ 1) she. was transferred 1‘11 the lntegrated Child DeVelopment Project, Abhanpur, District Raipur. The petitioner has tiled this petiton challenging the impugned transfer order dated 26.8.2003 on the ground that the impugned older was passed Without seeking permission from the eo-ordination committee, This Court by order dated 49,2003 granted inten'm relief to the 0t ‘ett'ect that the petitioner should not be relieved till the next date of hearing. This order was never modified nor varied, later on. Accovdirigly, the petitioner has continued on the same place of posting, till date, Co . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of this court’s order dated 4.9.2003, ms petitiormr has continued on tha same 01d place of pasting and the impugned ordar was never given effect to 3'11 respect of the petitioxler. The petitioner has been granted final relief by interim order. The petitioner could not continue at one place forever. It is well settled principle of law that transfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a Vr'f" particular otticerf employee be posted keeping fa View public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in 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. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not necessary to examine validity of die transfer order at this stage. In the facts of the case, the respondents are directed not to insist upon compliance of the impugned transfer order, This petition has become infrncmons with the passage of time. Accoidingly the petition is dismissed as having become infractuons. However, respondents/authorities are at liberty to pass appropiiate order for posting the petitioner in the public interest and administrative exigency, in accordance with law, No order as to costs. Sd/— Saesh K. Agnihotri .3 Judge Thakur