IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR N.P.NO._ i3CL? /2 00 3 PETXTIONER 2 Jrdxman Singh 3/o P»N» Singh, ^Aged about 35 years^ / Sub Divisional Officer (Foresfc) / South Baikunthpur, ^ District Koriya R/o Baikunthpur^Distt^Koriya (CG) VERSUS RSSPONDEliTS y ( ^^ \^91-' 1}State of ChMattisgarh Through the Secre'cary^ Porest Department^DKS Bhawan^ Raipur (CG). ^^.•^' ^') Deputy Secretary^ Forest Department, *'^ _/ j State of Chhattisgarh, .^1^^ ^- ^^y .'"^:-.. ^s-,,-^ ^^ <^\^ yy DKS Bhawan^ Raipur, |3}Divisional Forest Officer, Baikunthpur Division^ Koriya,t)istt»Koriya» )Shri,Anurag Shrivastava^ Assistant Conservator of Forest, Social Forestry Division^ Rai^piur, PMndri^ Raipur* ^y:.^' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 QS1 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA / a.£.-._..--—--.- .^: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Wnt Petition No, 1364 of 2QQ3 Petitioaer: Laxniaa Smgh Versus Respondents: State of Chliattisgarh & ofhers ^' Siss^le Beach: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotei. Miss Sunita Jaia, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, Govt, Advocate for fhe respondents No, 1 to 3, Shri Pawan Kesharwaai, Advocate for respondent No. 4. ORAL_QgDER ( 15th Febmaiy, 2006) The foUowiag order offhe Court was passed by Satish K. A@iihotri, J. 1, The petitioner, who was working as Szib Divisional OfiEicer, Forest at South Baikunthpur, Distdct- Koria was transferred by the mipugned order dated 22,4.2003 (Annexure P/l) to Bhopalpattnam in the same capacity. The oider dated 22.4,2003 was passed traiisfemng 16 officers from one place to other, The petitioner has filed this petition niakmg some allegations agaiiist the then Fina-iice Mioister wifhozit iaipleadiiig fhe then Fiaaiice Miaister as party. The petitioner has impugned fhe traasfer order on fhe ground ofinalafide exercise ofpowers. 2. This Coiirt by iaterbn order dated 14.5.2003 has granted iriteriin reUef to fhe efFect fhat fhe petitioner shoiild not be reUeved, tf abready not relieved. This interioi order was neifher varied nor zaodified later on, 3. By virtue of the iatermi prder dated 14.5,2003 the petitioner rcinaiaed posted on the sanie old place of postuig till date. The petitioner has been graiited final reUef by iatermi order, The petitioner coiild not contiiizie at one place forever. IN<^ ^-' 4. Today wlieu tlie inatter is taken up for hearmg leanied counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of fhe appUcation for iinpleadiag fhe then Finaace Miaister Dr< RSJII Chmidra Suighdeo as Respondent No,5 as pm^. At this stage, it is not necessary to allow fhe said appUcation when the petitioiier has atready availed fhe benefit of the interini order aud contmzied at the old place of postmg 101 date. 5. It is weU settled pnnciple of law that traiisfer is aa uicident of service aad it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular officer/eniployee be posted keeping ia view public interest as weU as administrative exigency. This Court has Imiited Jurisdiction to uiterfere in. the traasfer matter ancl this Court can iaterfere only iii the case of proved nialafide, noii-competence of authority passiiig the traiisfer onler aad transfer order not being iii conforoiity wifh fhe rules and regulations. Iii fhe facts and circumstances of the case, it is not necessaxy to examuie vaJidity offhe trsjisfer order at fhis stage. 6. This petition has becoine infnictuous wifh the passage of tinie. Accordingly the petition is dismissed as haviag becorae iafructuous, In fhe facts of fhe case, it is expected that fhe Respoudents No, 1 to 3 wiU uot iasist upon coinpliaace of fhe impugned transfer order dated 22.4.2003 ia respect of fhe petitioner, However, respondents/aufhorities are at Uberty to pass appropriate order for postmg fhe petitioner io. fhe pubtic nitercst aad adm.iaistrative exigency, ia accordance with law. No onler as to costs, Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur