CD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUKE AT BIIASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PEIITION N0.4^33/2005 EETIIIONER / M.R. Banjare, (As per impugned order B.L. Banjare), S/o. R. Banjare, Aged about 59 years, Occupatlon - service, Presently working as Principal, Govt» Boys Higher Secondary School, Keskal,Dist. Bastar(C * G) VERSUS BESPONDENIS /',/ / ^^/ ^^/ .p^>w ^- ^£W v ^ •*^ ^" ,^^w^^ ^- c^^° G.^^ ^ ^- ^v\5^> State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Adim Jati Tatha Anu. Jati Vikas Vibhag, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Collector, District Bastar (C.G.) Block Development Education Officer, Keskal,Dist. Bastar(C.G) Shri Bahadur Baghel, Principal, Govt- Higher Secondary School, Shyampur, Block Development Makdi, District Bastar (C<G) WRIT PETITKai UNDER ARDICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUftNCE OF WUT IN THE N&TUKE OF CERTIORaRI, MftNDAMCTS, PROHIBITION MO) FpR OTHER SUITJfflLE VBI'E OR WRITS, OBDER OR OBDERS^ DIRECTION OR DIBECIIONS ETC. H1GH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No. 4899 of 2005 Petitioner M. R. Banjare Versus Respondents StateofChhadisgarh&others SB: Hon'bte Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Smt. Foie»aMirza, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi. Panet Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 to 3. ORDER < Passed on this 26th day of February, 2007) The following order of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner white working as Principal in Govt Boys Higher Secondary School, Keskal, District- Bastar was transferred to Shyampur. Block " Makdi on the same terms and conditions victe impugned transfer order dated 5.9.2005 (Annexure P/2) within the same district. 2. This Court vide interim order dated 5.10.2005 granted stay of the effect and operalion of ths impugned order sn respect of the petitioner, t(M the next date of hearing. 3. Be that as it may. with the passage of time ttiis pefition has become infrucfuous as period of transfer is not applfoabte forever. At this point of time there is no question to examine the validify of the transfer order. However, the respondents are at liberiy to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the public interest and administratjve exigency. without insisting on compliance <rf the impugned transfer order. 4. It is well settled prindpte of law that transfer is an incklent of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particutar officer/employee be posted keepinQ in view public interest as well as admjnisfrative exigency. This Court has limited |urisdictk>n to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved malaficie, non-competence of authorifry' passing the transfor order and transfer order not besng in conformjty with the rutes and regulations. 5. In viev/ of the above, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd7- Thakur Satish K. Agnihotri Judge