3 ^ BEFORE THE M.P. STATE ADMINISTR&TIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH RAIPUR k^^36?~?//cy^ ^, . O.A. N0. /2001 APPLICANT NON-APPLICANT ^2-f f6 ^-of l^ -5 te^z- SMT. M.S.NAIR i Nursing Sister, po^ted at District Hospital, Jashpur Distt. Jashpur VERSUS 1. State of C.G. through the Secretary Department of Public Health and Family Welfare Govt. of Chhattisgarh, D.K.S.Bhavan, Raipur 2. Director Health Services, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Civil Surgeon, and Hospital Supdt., Jashpur ORIGINAL APPLICATION UN 19 OF THE M.P. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT, 1985 HtQH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S^ No. 3672 o? 20)5 Petitioner Smt. M. S. Nalr Versus Respondents State of C. G. & others SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Shri Rajesh Pandey, Advocate for tfie petitioner. V. V. S. Murthy, Deputy Advocate General with Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govt. Advocat®for the rsspondenls/State. ORDER ( Passed on this 9th day of March, 2007) The following order of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihofri, J. 1. The petitioner while working as Nureing SIster at District Hospital, Jashpur was transferred to Ambikapur, on the same terms and conditions, vide order dated 10.5.2001 (Annexure A/1). 2. The Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Raipur vfcte interim order dated 18.5.2001 directed to maintain status quo in regard to the position of the petitioner as it was prevailing on 16.5.2001. By virtue of the interim order the pstitioner is continuing at the orfginal place of posting. 3. Be that as it may, with fte passage of time this peffion has become infructuous as period of transfer is not appiicabte forever. At this point of time there is no question to examine the validity of the transfer order. However, the respondente are at liberfry to pass appropriate orders keeping 1 in view the publte mterest and adminisfrattve exigency, without JRsisting on compliance of the impugned transfer order. 4. It is well settled principle of !aw that transfer is an incident of service and it is for ttie employer to decide as to where a particufar ofRcer/employee be posted, keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the fransfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved malafide, non-competence of airthority passing the fransfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. 5. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge