;‘ . .w Q b‘xqmmyyw 3 $3! kg , .. é . av m@. ‘. € , E? mamHam“?43m E33 g§§ awnmg. ”3% wga. w CMMxC J X £E x a4. #4. “a“? \mao_ wmwwm. ma%Mam. wqm 5 m» $3.3 $4mwawma am. wag. £3. mw amaéjq. avaaaw“ Km.%. .. 4$“. Qgq n w$axim dom‘mm 3 ga. 24 m‘mmm 4g i ghmqmg. worww “: gmq wa.a “Egg ME da: was. ?4“ g4 lm& au; ww Jog 4$: wjomaqdoq Apadmwimgwa EE. -..mg“. mzr V 3w$ amamam £4 s m§ E qua §£Ea mg. aga u a mEuu 12 M 11111.1 “ u “ m Q g am .w A &§~ w w 0 aam ww HIGH COURT OF CHHAT'HSGARHAT B[LASPUR WP. (S) No. 3784 of 2005 Petitioner Chaturbhui Sahu Versus Respondenks State cf Chhamsgarh & others SB: Hon’bie Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. J Shri Anupam Dubey, Advocate for the petitianer. V. V. S. Murthy. Deputy Advocate General with Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govt. Advoeate for the respondentsIState. O R D E R ( Passed on this 9'" day of March. 2007) The following order of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner while working as Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Kohangatola. Baiod‘ District —‘ Durg was transferred to Middle Schooi, Bhimkahar, Block — Dondi Lohara. on the same terms and conditions vide impugned order dated 6.9.2001 (Annexure N1). 2. The Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunai at Raipur vide interim order dated 18.9.2001 directed to maintain status quo in regard to the position of the petitioner as it was prevailing on 13.9.2001. By virtue of the interim order the petitioner is working at the originai place of posting. 3. Be that as it may, with the passage of time this petition has become infructuous as period of transfer is— not appiicabie 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 view the pubiic interest and administrative exigeney, without insisting on compliance of the impugned transfer order. 4. lt is well settled principle of iaw that transfer is an incident of service and it is to? the employer to decide as to where a particular ofticerlemployee be posted. keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited iurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved malatide, noncompetence of authority passing the transfer 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. "'~ Sd/— .f l Satjsh K. Agnihotri it Judge V i l Thakur