:^ 1:::! ^ ^ ' ^?^%; UL(<^0_L BEFORE THE M.P. STATEADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH RAIPUR .ft4fT af.'.':t'~'''i< APPLICANT NQN-APPLICANT O.A. N0.<~^~u /2001 ftto...S^?.a.^ Flieiltoday .•?.;3- !.'.?• J "^. Af5An.:.t^ •S^^.^yrM_ .. SHIVKUMARSHARMA Son ofLate Pt. J.P. Sharma Asstt. Professor Deptt. ofHindi Govt. College, Abhanpur Distt.RaipuF(C.G.) VERSUS 1. StateofC.G. through the Secretary Department ofHigherEducation Goyt. of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S.Bhavan, Raipur 2. Principal Govf. College.Abhanpur Distt.Raipur(C.G.) ORlGINALWri-ICjOTIONUNEERSEGjT'IONI 9(3)F THEM.F'SWTE AblVllNISTRAnVETRIBUNALACT1985 •!;1; •'; l' •i::!( r ."•y. •" ,,F" HIGHeOURTOFCHHATTISGftRHATBIl-ASPOR SINGLE BEKieH : l-iON'BLEMR.SATISHK.AGNIHOTRi.J. \'[';^\ \ WRITPEflTION(S.lNOA4210F2005 Petitioner Respondents Versys Shiv Kumar Sharma State ofC.G. and another Present : Mr. Maneesh Sharma,eounsel ;for theipetitioner. ;ff Mr. V.V.S.IVlQorthy; QeputylfAd^oeate jSeneral^ with Br, AjayDwi^i^di, PanelLawyerfbrthierespfindents/Stete. ORDER (Passedon 12tnofOGtober, 2006) gl.T^^lcffiiginalaaplUs^i^^lwas'^rflledi^ Admini^i^jve.;Hi"ijiimBalgB^cM||||^ifiBi|^mpugn!nglhetran§ferordisr: dated 26-12-20Q1 (Annexure ;A^g,^^ere6y!the :petittoner,iwho^^w^ working on the post of Assistant Professor !at Govemroent^Collegsl Abhanpur, District Raipur, was transferrecl to th®Govemmeht GoUegel BaSodabazar, District Raipur. ; J , | 2. Whjle admjtting jttie; petition,;th®Tjibunal, byNts O^ dated 8^^0Q2l{granted sta^sfl^witllK regard|to the postiHg c^^ petitionerason 27-12-2001 .,l-^[n'i|edcounsel that by virtue ofjthe jnterim lorc|er,!|Ehe petitiop ton tHe same place of iposting, i.e.. GeSied'nmetit College! Raipur. folithepetltionersubmils I Abhanpur;' DiStript m w 3. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has got the final relief by way of interim order and the petitioner has been onthe same place for more than four years. The petitionercould not continue at one place forever. iGaBal! 4. ^..!t is well settled principleof law that transfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular officer/employee be posted keeping in view public interest as well as; administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer mattersand this Goyrt can interfere only with the case of proved roa/a ffcte, non-competerice of authority passing the transfer order and transfer ordernot being in conformity with the rules and regulatioris. !n thefacts and circumstances of the case, it is not necessar^ to examine validity of the transfer order at this stage. However, :the resRortdents—-aytlioritiesare directed not to insist on 'v'., ' : '! compliance of ithe impugned ^tiaiisfoR orderi dated 26-12-2001 (AnnexureA-1). :, 5. Thispetition has become infructuous with the passageof time. Accordingly, the petition is dismjssed as having become infructuous. Hrawever, the respondents - authorities are at liberty tq pass appropriate order for postingttle petitioner irt public interest and administrative exigency, inac;cordancewitli^law.: Nporderas tocosts. I SdA Satish K. Aggihotri Judge ,i; •;•!