IN THE HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CG) WRIT PETITION N0. Z/^o 5" /2002 PETITIONER A: ^'1 .^^ . .-'t.yr^" ^^T^^ ^- '^' \-'^ ^•\^' ^1>"'" ^RESPONDENTS •';.v ...•°' ^^ 3. Smt Vandana Madankar, aged about 31 years, wife of Shri Sunil Madankar, working as Lecturer ^Political Science), in Government Girls Higher Secondary School, No. II, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar, Chhatisgarh. ./- VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Adim Jati Tatha Anusuchit Janj..J Vikas Vibhag, Mantralay, Shashtri Chowk, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Commissioner, Department of Adim Jati Tatha Anusuchit Janjati Vikas Vibhag, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Smt. E.J. Singh, aged about 57 years, wife of Shri J Singh, Surplus Lecturer, Government Girls Higher Secondary School No.II, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar, Chhatisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 2267227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION, MANDAMUS ETC. AND / OR FOR FURTHER APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS OR ORDERS TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATER. r^-a- "^o. m HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WJ3.No, 2705 pf 2002 Petitioner Smt. Vandaua Madankar Versus Respondeats State of Chhafttisgarh & others SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotei, J Shri Prashaat Jayaswal, Seiiior Advocate with Shn Sankalp Jayaswal, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for fhe rcspondents/State. O R D ER ( Passed on tliis <? lstday ofFehniary, 2007) The followmg order of fhe Court is passed by tetish K. Agpiihotelt J. 1. The {^titioner white workmg as Lecturer (Political Science) ici Goverameut Girls Higher Secondaiy School No,II, Jagdalpur was traasferred to Beejapur, Dantewada on fhe same terms aad conditiQus vide mipugued transfer order dated 30,11.2002 (Aunexure A/7). 2. This Court vide interim order dated 22.1.2003 dirccted not to relieve the petitioner, ifnot already rclieved. 3. Be fhat as it may^ with fhe passage of tuue fhis petition. has become iafhictuous as period of transfer is not appUcable forever. At fhis pomt of tmie therc is no question to exainine the valkiity of the traasfer order. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping m view fbe public iaterest and admtaistrative exigency, wifhout tasistmg on compliance offhe earMer transfer order. 4. It is well settled principle of law fhat transfer is an mcident of service and it is for fhe employer to decide as to where a partfcular officer/employee be posted keepmg m view pubUc taterest as weU as adniinistrative exigency. This Court has limited jurisdiction to interferc m fhe transfer matter and this Court caa interfere only in the case of proved malafide, non- coDipetence of authority passiag fhe toransfer order and transfer oi^der not beiag ia. couformity wifh fhe rules aad regulations. 5. In view of the above, this petition staads disposed of. No order as to costs, Sd/- Thakur Satish K. Agnihotri Judge