?la^"N^ Thakur HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BiLASPUR W.P.(S') No.3817of2005 Petitioner Versus Respondente 1. Mahendra Kumar Patel, age 44 years, son of Shri Ram Kumar Patet, Assistent Teacher, SVtiddJe SchooS. Sapos, BlocR - Dabhara, District Janjgir. State of ChhalSisgarh. Through Secretar^, School Education Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattssgarh). 2. Director, Public (nstructlons Chhattisgarh, Penslon Bada, Rajpur (Chhattisgarh). 3. Dlstrict Education OffScer, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. SS: Hon'bJe Mr. Justice Safsh K. Agnthotri, J Shri Anupam Duboy, Advocate for tho petitjonor. Mlss SuRita Jaln, Panet lawyer for the respondente/State. ORDER ( Passed on this 13th day of March, 200T) The foSSowlng order ofthe Court is passed by SaSish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner whiSe working as Asststant Teacher at MidSe SchooS, Sapos. DtstricS- Janjglr Champa was transferrecS to Primary Schooj, Nan'yara, Btock - Ma! Kharouda, on the same terms and conditions. vide Smpugned order dateci 10.9.2001 (Annexure A/1). 2. The Madhya Pradesh AdmJnistratSve Tribunai at Raipur vlde interim order dated 25.9.2001 directed to maintain status quo in regard to the posiSion of ths petitioner as was prevaiSing on 18.8.2001. By vjrtue of the interim order the petitioner is contlnuing at the origlna! pSace of posting. 3. Be that as It may, wjth the passage of time this petitjon has become jnfructuous as period of transfer is not appSJcabie forever. At this point of tjms there js no question to examine the validifry of the transfer order. However, the respondsnte are at llberfy to pass appropriate orders keeping in vsew the public jnterest and admlnistrative exigency, v/ithout jnsisting on compllance of the impugned transfer order. 4. It is wef! settSed principle of Saw that transfer is an incident of servjce and 11 is for the empioyer to decids as to where a partjcular offrcer/employee be postsd, keeping in view publlc Interest as well as admintstratSve exigency. Thls Court has Ijmited lurisdiction to interfere jn the transfer matter and this Court can interfere only in the case of proved maSafide, non-competence of authorjfy passlng the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformjty wlth the ruSes and regulations. 5. In view ofthe above, this petjtion stands dssposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge