^»»,<u<saMti :^ 'v BEFORE THE M.P. gTATE ABMINISTRATIVELTRIBI &^%> 36S:>/^ Q.A. N0. /2001 APELIGANT NON-APPLICANT BaiHeiL.RAEPBK" %%^n^i'OY ^s^''Ty^"^- -•(*C '-^ c»u^'-•- {V.! '^i'ar, '".. Ttibunai. DR. FIRAT RAM NIRALA ,, Son of Late Shri R.K. Nirala,' BlQck Medical OfSicer"~posted as ~ . Primary Heaith Centre Palari . . Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of C.G. through the SecEetaFy . EeparCment of Fubii.c.^ "Health and.Famtly Welfare •Govt.. of, Chhafctisgarh, . D.K.S.Bhavan, Raipur 2 .- ." •ChieKMedtcal Officer Raipur, 'Distt. Ralpur'(C.G.) ORISIN^i;»MlE>SeiSa!'ffifffia:B3BE ^ ':'. s fe:%..ssMSia'gSEM'ilaEgE8si®^ SiaTE ;i3SW»!ii-BiS&-''S!1: aiiui3i.j3Ki HIGH GOURT OF GHHA'rnSGARH AT BILASPUR \NP.tS\ No."3S65yof2»5 Petitioner Dr.Firat Ram Ntrala Versus Respondents State of C. G. & othere SB: Hon'bleMr. Justice Satish K. Agnihofri, <1 •%!<-'' Shri Manish Shanna, Advocate forttie pefitioner. V. V.S. Murthy, DeputyAdvocate General with Smt. Anju Ahu|a, DeputyGovt. ^idvocate for ther®^>ondents/State. t_• • ,. OROER < Passad on this 9f dayof March, 2007] Thefoltowing order<rfthe Court is passed by Satish K. Agnlhotri, J. 1. The peBUoner white warking as Blwk Medical Offlcer at Primary Health Centre, Palari, District - Raipur was transferred to Sumar, Dantewada, on the same terms and condiUons, wde order dated 2.5.2001 (Annexure A/1). 2. The Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Raipur vide interim order dated 15.5.2001 directedto maintain status quo in regard to flie (x^ffionof {hepeBtionerasitwasprevailing on 145.3301. ByvtrtueofttieirrterimoTder the petitionerfe confinuing atthe original place ofposting. 3. Be ttiat as it may, with fiie passage of Sme fliis petffion has becQme infrucftious as period of transfer is not appKcable forwer. A( this point of time there is no quesfion to examine tte validity of ttie fransfer order. However, the respondente are attibeitytopass appropriate orders tceeping in wffw the public interest and administrative exigency, without insisting on compliance ofthe impugned transfer order. 4. ItiswellsettledRrinciplsoflawthattransferisan inddentofservteeand itis for the emptoyer to decide as to where a partteular officer/employee be posted, keeplng in yiew public interest as well as administrative exigency. ThisCourt has limited iurisdietion to interfere in tte transfer matterand this Court can interfere only in ttie case of prov«lmalaride, non-competenceof authortty passing the fransfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with therutesandTeigulations. s 5. In view ofthe above, this petition stands dispcsed of.No order as to costs. Thakur Sd/- SatishK.Agniliotri Judge