HIGH COURT OF CHHAT’I‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1209 of 2003 Petih'oner: Mani Das, son of Amar Das Mahant, aged about 42 years, I Occupation- Waxd Boy, presently posted at Primary Health Centre, Vijay Nagar, Distict— Raigarh (C.G.). Versus Respondents: 1. State. of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Raipur (c.G.). 2. Manohar Lal Patel, son of Bhuvneshwar Prasad Patel, aged about 42 years, Occupation— Ward Boy, posted at Ptimary Health Centre, Binjkot, District— Rajgarh (ea). 3. Mahavir Pmsad Patel, B.D.C. Member, haple, 'I‘ehsil— Kharsiya, District— Raigarh (ea). r Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Shri Awadh ’I‘ripathj, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel lawyer for the Respondent No. 1. ORAL ORDER ( 2nd February, 2006) The following order of the Court was passed by Satish K. Ayihotri, J. 1. The petitioner who was working as Ward Boy at Primary Health Centre, Vijay Nagar, District- Raigarh was transferred vide order dated 7.3.2003 to New Primary Health Centre, Binjkot on his own cost. The petitioner has impugned this order on the ground that the petitioner has never applied for transfer as such this transfer order is bad in law by depriving the petitioner the cost of transfer, which is admissible and payable in lease, the transfer order is , 22 made due to the administrative exigency. This Court by interim order dated 26.4.2003 allowed the peti11'oner to continue on the same place of posting, if he was not relieved. . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of 1111's court’s Older dated 26.4.2003, the petitioner has continued on the same old place of posting and the impugned order was never given ell‘ect to in Iespect of the petitioner. The. petitioner has been granted final relief as even by quashing of the transfer order, the petitioner could not continue at one place forever. 3, It is well settled principle of law that transfer is an incident of semice 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 malaiide, non-competence of authorities passing the transfer order and not in conformity with the rules and regulau'ons. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not necessary to examine validity of the transfer order at this stage. The respondents are directed not to insist upon compliance of the impugned transfer order, in the fats of the case. 4. This petition has become inkuctuous with the passage of time. Accordingly the petition [is dismissed as having become infructuous. However, respondents/authorities are at Hberty to pass appropriate order for posting the/petitioner in the public interest and administrative exigency-‘any where. No order as to /‘2 i ’Sd/- . _ Satish K. Agmhw‘ Judge Thakur costs.