^ v In the Honble High Court of Chhattishgarh at Bilaspur (C.G.) W.P. No....................?.'t.^..........2005 Petitioner ^ .^^ /.rf^ '^^y .^y, ^// Bohran Lal Rawate aged 34 years Son of Shri Dayal Singh Rawate Odarshakri Tahsil Gunderdehi District Durg (C.G.) Versus ^ Respondents /,i8 ^.'^ ".Y'b^ &^sA • State Government of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Revenue Department Ministry, D.K-S.Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^. The Sub Divisional Officer, Balod, District Durg (C.G.) Writ Petitioner underArticles 226/227 of the Constifution of India. -Th&jietitioner respectfully furnishes the particulars of the writ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No. 343 of2005 Petitioner Bohran Lal Rawate Vereus Respondente State of Chhatfisgarh & others SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for fte peffloner. ^ Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Pansl Lawyer for the respondenls. ORDER ( Passed on this26ul day of February, 2007) The following order of e Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner while working as Patwari at Bhamtola, District -Durg was transferred to Kanker on ftie sam®terms and conditions vide impugnsd transfer order dated 21 .10.2004 (Annexure P/2). 2. Thjs Court vide interim order dated 25.4.2005 directed that ths petitioner be not relieved, till the next date of hearing, if not already relieved. By virtue of the interim order the petitioner must have continued on the same place of posting. 3. Be that as it may, with the passage of time this petition has become infructuous as period of fransfer is not applicable 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 public interest and administrative exigency, without insisting on compliance ofthe impugned fransfer order. 4. It is well settled principle of law that transfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particufar ofHcer/employee be posted keeping in view public interest as wel! as administrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved maiafide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformfty with the rutes and r^ulatiwis. 5. !n view of the above, this petffion stands disposed of. No order as to costs. ThaKur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge