‘ :7; ‘4 r ‘ )1/ ?§ BEFORE THE STATE ADmNIs'rRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH AT RAIPU ..--..- ___________ _::_,/__....___ ww/y :2 i> <77 W ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. " /2001. Narottam Patel son of Shri Rooplal Patel, Asstt. Teacher, ' Middle School Sindhitarai. Block Dabhara. Distt. Janjgirchampa. Chhattisgarh o . . . Applicant Ver SL1 E 1. State of Chhattisgarh. Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya. D.K.S .Bhanwan. Raipur.c.<3. 2. Director. Public Instructions Chhattisgarh. Pension Baua. Raipur (C.Go§. ’ 3. District Education Officer. §istrict Janjgir daempa. OPELacaTION HNEEE EEQTION lace IHE ewe. IDL’IINETEAIIEL‘ TRIBUNAL EWG 1985 1 B- .‘m- -.__ \ ... Non applicant. ’ 3 R” HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. (S) No. 3793 of 2005 Petitioner Naromm Patel Versus Responden$ smte‘ of Chhattisgarh & others SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Shri Anupam Dubey. Advocate for the petitioner. g V. V. S. Murthy, Deputy Advocate General with Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the reepondentelState. 0 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 working as Assistant Teacher in Middle School. Sindhitarai, District - Janigir Champa was transferred to Primary School, Bhutaha. on the same terms and conditions vide impugned order dated 10.9.2001 (Annexure N1). 2. The Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Raipur vide interim order dated 26.9.2001 directed to maintain status quo in regard to the position of the petitioner as it was prevailing on 14.9.2001. By virtue of the interim order the petitioner is working at the original place of posting. 3. 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 pointxof 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 insisu‘ng on compliance of the impugned transfer order. 4. lt 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 officer/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 malatide. non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformity with the rules and regulations. 5. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of, No order as to costs. e; Sd/- l ‘w‘ Satish K.Agnihotri Judge l i .Thakur