m 1w: HIGH eom'r OF mmTIsam mxcawma m Bxmspm m1: peuucm‘ ‘3 ézl {2004' vmmONaR Uma wxankar Patel. son of Shri Pokh Raj Patel. gyy pe Divmt Teah nhu mock abhara. Distriat anr-Chp. (matugarh ) . versus (1) tate ea? axhattisgarh Thou seértaty, chaol Educaion Departnmt . taya D.K .$ ;wa . a attisg arh Rimr. w 0 ( . 2‘) Director $choo Edueadan epartment. Pension Bada. Raipur C.Gr. ) District Edution icar. 5 Janjgeer-daampa. mhatisgarh. m t WRITWWW §ETITION UMDER ARTECLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA w WMM ”ML ' “ flpr on c”. ' rlaot. b Jjgea‘ama si S . rgh e S t i Manral. man l D . (3 ca 0f£ WM HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINGLE EENCH : H0N5§LE MR. SATISH K. AGNiHOTm, J. WRIT PETlTlON NO.3621 OF 289g Petitioner : Uma Shankar Patel V6fSU$ Respondggg : State cf Chhattisgarh and others Present : Mr. Sachin Singh Rajput, ccunsei for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for the Siatel’respondenis. I ORDER {Passed on 22““ Day of Februiary, 2007) The petitioner, while working as Upper Division Teacher in Government Higher Secondary School, Dhurkot, Block Dabhara, District Janjgir-Champa has been transferred to another District, i.e., District Bilaspur, vide order elated 16-9—2004 (P4). 2. Ne stay order was granted by this Court in this matter. The transfer order dated 16-9-2004 (P—l) must have been executed by the respondents. 3. Be that as it may, with the passage of time, this petition has become infructuous as period of transfer is not applicabie forever. At this point of time, there is no question to examine the vaiidity of the impugned transfer order. However. the respondents are at iiberty to / d W... a”. / / $3 / paS$ appropriate orders keeping in View the pubiic §nterest am administrative exigency, without insisting on compiiance of the impugned transfer order. 4. it is weii settled principle of iaw that transfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decided as to where a particular officeri‘employee be posted keeping in View public interest as weil as administrative exigency. ‘i‘his Court has iimited jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere oniy in the case of proved male fide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. 5. in View of the above! the writ petition stands disposed of. I No order as to costs. ’Sd/- Saiish K. Agnihotri Judge