‘ H. § 1:;IfjrunR i ana nrwa 1M yh’a‘} W‘a gmaim amam, agnh - mm 3 2w 3 aa 3%r%:a W -------/200l ‘ —- -._ _.. —..-... —__-.— (26‘) {b ’/ m°r' :cfr‘ ara arrg a6? asrw ‘1‘mc5 ga" mtmm mar awrrgr, Raragv, a aT- h1am I- EEPraak; war": agar HTfm, ma ‘I‘He’lr ‘Fasarn 'ka ‘hqr w—wwv?’ Nag? EE'JT‘Q 2- ?aar Tatar m‘mm', ‘mrrn' ‘FEiaTag'? 3 E 31.3 - aar‘dnwm arraaa qar WW1 urn 19 q g Tr‘a garirn’?w mMm am’i‘aan :935 maw ‘famraaw ?a§:q ma ¥ :- I- araw $T ‘faam . mam Ha $ Hihifzraarv air%w m’r i’awa ?aam yega %1 2- marawm w Wga ‘Famwa . mramm mr ‘fawa ‘faam araaa qar §3 Simsmm? %| mm: air $aam ma fw‘g" 311%? ca gwa ‘ramr sn- vgr % aar‘rm §q1e¢ ' :— 5529/ wr' 3/ gwwwnm air‘w’i ‘f‘aa‘m :-‘ ‘Faarag? ‘fm’auw 3/9/2001 air‘cm anWm" :- mmr‘m mar Tmr ”mm?” ‘FaaT Tammy a Jr s 4 y m @ HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. (S) No. 3769 of 2005 Petitioner G. D. Sahu Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & another SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Shri Y. C. Sharma , Advocate for the petitioner. V. V. S. Murthy, Deputy Advocate General with Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondentslState. C R D E R (Passed on this 9‘" day of March, 2007) The following order of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner while workin as Assistant Teacher in Middle Schooi, Sarkanda. Bilaspur was transferred to Middle School. Sitpahri. on the same terms and conditions, vide order dated 3.9.2001 (Annexure A/1). . The Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Raipur vide interim order dated 12.9.2001 directed to maintain status quo in regard to the position of the petitioner as it was prevailing on 10.9.2001. By virtue of the interim order the petitioner is continuing at the original piace of posting. Be that as it may, with the passage of time this petition has become infructuous as period of transfer 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 of the impugned transfer order. 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 particular olticer/employee be posted. keeping in view public interest as well 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 malafide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. in view of the above. this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Thakur .. J... A sd/_ xi Satish K. Agnihotri .l': Judge