^.IIIf: ^ IN. IN; loi' •iy 'rai; ]Mig l»g l-l" li |KI!?: liiili ;fe. II: l:i 1 '^ II tol; liii M 16!' •ilffl' "^^'': a •/ll :2] ,1>4 ';^ w IBIIi ::M ^ 11; '^ AwA •^ 3|i N. N •^ 3), ^: (M X, X K S si) :ii: o-U. :-g^:: (~-> <s.! :Ci Ul IIIIiIIii '^^^fe?yl¥y''§%'^if £l!ti<>kt^t.iL?t!-£»u-i Bablu HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No. 4965 6f 2005 Petitioner Smt. SumitraMarkam Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & others SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocateforthepetitioner. Mrs.Anju Ahuja, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State. ORDER (Passed on this 1a day of March, 2007) 1. The petitioner, whileworking as Upper Dh/ision Teacher in Girts Middte School, Farasgaon Block Farasgaon, was transferred to Higher Secondary School, Darbha, Block Darbha, on the same terms and conditions vide impugned transfer order dated 16.9.2005 (P/1). 2. ThisC6urt,vJdeinterimorderdated 7.10.2005, has stayed the efFect and operation of the impugned order dated 16.9.2005 till the next date of hearing. By virtue of the interim order, the petitioner Has continued onthesameplace of posBng. 3. Be that as it may,with the passage oftime this petition has become infructuous, as period of transfer is not appiicable forever. At this point of time there is no question to examine the validity of the transfer order. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in vjew the public interestand administrative exigency, without insisting 6n cohsplianceofthe impugnedtransferorder. 4. It is wellsettled principle of law ttiattransfer is an incidence 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 matter and this Courtcan interfereonly in thecase of proved malafide, non-competence of auttiority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regutations. 5. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 6. Consequently,M.(W.)P. No. 4008/2005, applicaUonforgrantofinterim relief.stendsdisposedof. '—^. / ^ Sd/- ..:- ; :'"~. \ Satish K.Agniiiotri S Judge •3—33d