s'r BEFORE THE M.P. STATEADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH RAIPUR <^> APPLICANT NON-APPLICANT O.A.NO. 1^^ /2001 ^^TYC^ v Rakesh Kumar Bele SonofLateP.S. Bele Assistant Professor Deptt. of History^ Govt. Arts & Science College, Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1. StateofC.G. through the Secretary Department of Higher Education Govt. of Chhattisgarh, D.KS.Bhavan, Raipur 2. Principal Govt. Arts & Science College, Durg (C.G.) OR1GINAL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 1 9 OF THE M.P. STATE ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNALACT. 1985 SiNGLE BSNCH : HON'BLE MR. SATiSH K. AGNiHOTRi, WRiTPcTiTIQNIS.) NO.S91S OF Pstitionsr versus i-iesBondenis ?J.i5?~°G Rakssh Kumar Ssie rf?1 y^ ^^ ^ ?^ i^T? t/^ ^"y ^TSIS o'f L;.i<;. sno sno'^nsr Mr. Maneesh Sharma, counsel for the peiitioner. Mr. V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocats Gensrai with Mr. fl^ay Dwivedi, Pane! Lawyer forthe respondents/State. ipficite-n nn 1'>'h,-ifn.t""a!' 7i'lnR'* VJ ^, . a £~ •l^-i ^f:i^..'^-i»\J';, A.W-'TU" The original application was fiisd before the State Adrninistrative Tribuna!, Bench at Raipur, impugning the transfer order datsd 24-9-2001 (Annexure A-1), whersby the petitioner, who was working on the posf of Assistant Professor at Govsrnment Arts and Science Coiiege, Durg, was transfsrrsd to the Government College, Dhamdha, Districi Durg. 2. After admitting the pefition on 9-10-2001, the Tribunal, by Its order datsd 12-10-2001, grantsd status csuo with regard to ths posting of the petltioner as on 1-10-2001. Lsarned counss! for the pstitioner submits that by virtus of the interim order, the petitjoner Is continuing on the same piace of postins, i.s., Government Arts and icience Coiiegs, Dura. i As a matter of fact, the petitioner has go! the fiRal reiief by way of interim order and the petitloner has been on the sasris piace for about five years. Ths petitioner couid not continue at one place forever. 4. it is weil ssitied princlple of saw that transfer is an incident of service andjt is for the employer to decide asjo where a particuiar oficer/smployee be postsd kssping in view public interast as wei! as administrative exigency. This Court has llinited jurisdiction to intsrfere with the iransfer matters and thte Court can interfsre oniy wlih the sase of proved inala fide, non-competsnce of authority passlng the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity wlth the ruses snd rsguiations. In the facts and circumstancss of ths case, it is not necsssary to examins validity of the transfer order at this stage. Howsver, the respondsnts ~ authorities ars cirected not to insist on nce of the smpugned transfer order datsd 24-9-2001 (Annexu 1). 5. This pstition has become infructuous with the oassaas of tlme. Accordingiy, the petition is dismissed ss having become infructuous. However, the raspondents - authoritiss are at libsrt*' to pass appropriate order for posting the petltioner in pubiic intsrsst and administrative exigency, In accordance with iaw. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge