a/‘ genc Sim” a d” x C9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4&36 OF 2004 PETITIONER: SMT. P. JYOTI’LAXSHMI NAIDU, WIFE OF SHRI P. MOHAN NAIDE, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SHANTI NAGAR, JAGDALPUR, DISTRICT BASTAR (c.G.) Versus 2. THE ’ COMMISSIOR, DEPARTMENT OF DEVLELOPMENT OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES, RAIPUR. MATA RUKMANI SEVA SANSTHAN, THROUGH THE. SECRETARY, DIMRAPAL, DISTRI CT 'BASTAR. duwwqm» . I I, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 85 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF»INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF‘ WRITS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTORARI AND /0R ORDERm AND /oR DIREcTION(S) 1N THE NATURE OF WRITS 1. Particulars of the petitioneru— As per the cause title. 2. Particulars of the respondents: — J As per the cause title. h , / NE RESPONDENTS’I/H OF CHHATISGARH, (L. 4‘ ‘y/S’TATE’ THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEVELOPMENT OF ’w SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES, D.K.S. BHAWAN, RAIPUR (C.G.) / / x J HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HONigLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHGTRH._J_. WRIT PETiTlON No.4896 OF 2004 Petitioner Smt. P. Jyoti Laxshmi Naidu VQFSUS Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and others Present : Mr. B.P.Sharma, counsei for the petitioner. Mr. Utkarsh Verma, Deputy Government Advocate tar the Stateirespondenis No.1 and 2. Mr. Prafuii Bharat counsel for respondent No.3. Mr. B.D.Guru, connsei for the intervener. ORDER (Paseed on 22'” Day of February. 2007) -./"l’he petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher in the estabttshment of respondent No.3. The petitioner was transferred from Tongpal in the establishment of respondent No.3 to Bastar in the same capacity, vide order dated 23-7-2004 (P-2). The petitioner joined the new place of posting, but, thereafter, the transfer of the petitioner has been canceiled vide order dated 30"] 1-2004 (P-S). .V , 2. This Court, vide interim order dated 18-1 -2005, directed that the order of cancellation dated 30—11-2004 (P-3) shalt not be given effect till the next date of hearing and the petitioner shat} be allowed to continue in Kanya Aashram, Basta’r, in case she has atready joined at Bastar. 3. has become infructuous as period of transfer is not applicabie forever. At this point of time, there is no question to examine the vaiidity of the impugned transfer order. However, the respondents are at iiberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in View the pubtic interest and administrative exigency, without insisting on compliance of the impugned transfer order. Be that as it may, with the passage of time, this petition 4. it is weii’settled principle of Iaw that transfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decided as to where a particuiar officer/employee be posted keeping in View pubiic interest as we“ as administrative exigency. This Court has limited iurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere oniv in the case of proved maia We, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. t ‘tri. VA 5. in View of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.