^ HK3H COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASRJR W.P.(S) No.^13of2<X)5 Petitioner Kanhaiya Lal Kaushik, age 60 years, S/o Late Shri C. L. Kau^iik, Assistant Teacher, Govt. Prtmary School, Batod, District- Durg (C.G.) Versus Respondente 1. State of Chhaffisgarh, Through Secretary, School Education Department^ D. K. S. Bhawan, Raipur 2. District Education Officer, District- Durg (C.G.) SB: Hon'bte Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Shri Rakesh Anftony, Advocate for fhe pefifioner. Shri Su^ii! Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the respondents/Sfate. ORDER (Passed on this 1^ta day of March, 2007) The follov/ing order of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner while woridng as Asastant Teacher at Govt. Mkldle School, Balod, District- Durg was transferred to Primaty Schoot, Padldbhat (Balod), on the same terms and condittons, vide impugned order dated 25.9.2001 (Annexure A/1). 2. The Madhya Pradesh Administrafive Tribunat at Raipur vide interim order dated 6.10.2001 directed to maintain status quo in regard to the position of the pefitioner as was prevailsng on 29.9.2001. By virttie of the interim order the petitionsr is continuir^ at the origlnal place of posting. 3. Be that as it may, wittt the passage of Ume this petition has become infructuous as period of transfer is not applicable forever. At this point of time there is no question to examine ffie validity of the bansfer order. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the public interest and administrative exigency, wittiout insisting on compliance of the impugned transfer order. Amit 4. lt is well setUed principte of law that transfer is an incklent of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a parficular ofRcer/employee be posted, keeping in wew publta interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has timited jurisdidlon to interfere with the transfer matter and this Court can entsrfain judicial wnew only in the case of proved malafide, non-competence of auttiority passing the transfer oTder and transfer order not being in confomiity wfth the rules and r^iuiations. 5. In view of the above, this prtiUon stancts disposed of. No order as to Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1