HIGH COURT OF CHHATTtSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fS) No.3978of2005 Pstiboner Smt. Snehprabha Bachan, W/o C. V. Bachan, aged aboift 47 ysars, Assistant Teachsr. Primary School, Rudri, District- Ohamtari. Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretaiy, School Educafion Department, D. K. S. Bhawan, Raipur 2. District Educafion Offteer, Dfetrict- Dhamteri (Chhatfsgarh) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justtee Satish K. Agnihotri, J Shri A. H. Siddque, Advocate for the petifioner. Shri Sushil Dubsy, Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State. ORDER (Passed on this lfftl day of March, 2007) The follov/ing order of the Court is passed by Satlsh K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner white woridng as Assistant Teacher at Primaiy School, Rudri, Ostrtet- Dhamtari was fransferred to Mkldte School, Gangrel, on the same tsrms and conditions, vkle impugned order dated 22.9^)01 (Annexurs A/1). 2. The Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Raipur vide interim order dated 22.10.2001 directed to maintain stato quo in regard to the positk>n of e petiBoner as was prevailing on 8.10.2001. By virtue of the interlm order the peBGoner is confinuing at e original place cf posGng. 3. Be that as it may, with the passage of time this petitton tas become infructuous as period <rf transfer is not applicable forever. At this point 'of time there is no question to examine the \ratidity of ttie transfer order. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the public interest and administrative exigency, without insisting on compliance of the impugned transfer orcter. "'SEa^^ Amit 4. It is welt settled principle of law Uiat bansfer fe an incklent of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular ofRcer/employee be posted, keeping in view pubRc interest as w^l as administrative eidgency. This Court has Bmited jurisdicGon to intertere with the transfer matter and this Court can entertain judicial review only in the case of provsd malafide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer ordsr and fransfer order not being in confbrmity with Uie rutes and rsgulaticns. 5. In wew of the above, this petiCon stands disposed cf. No order as to costs. _ 7 '— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge B