{Lg/WV M‘ ‘g/x 7~ K7; m aurn’m gym Swarm aETznra *mfm'r g’T mar) Wm gin? fawmwg wag? mm Wmg? gtmrog u 3n%fa§'r Tm? M n-q. ma? :TzT aflaa, (saga 131W famw, 3mm Sin-9‘s 8 32g Umamvrg mm, grw afaa, 15w TWT WWW, agrrazr wag? gam'iwrag $33 3m: M‘ftrm m'mTz‘T, tr%:f 34W EfaTFm, farm rr’EITaa Wag? 1’am‘ WE? 3&3. 21. g 3m1%aamw 3mm? Era? afavfa am' 19 WWI maW-ms yWmsm mamtm 1985 £m%awr m faa‘m I12... @fam aw faérm ,: 3rfq'aa' cr5r %$ Wam? % I 3H%E€:1' q—ai §5 Wamv E’ l mama fay mhw fwg Wga WT Ex aw mm: mfazr mat :fama ‘famg? fawn Wm? W white arfcm mfas/aawgfmw arm/2000 W? faa'm m-s-zooo % aWT y1%faa¢r w Vramfam warms wTm 52a %9‘Ta‘m31TaT W Wgfwgmm§3 HEH EW mam WIT mT ”i Ea fem? Wgra ir a% 333 3H 55*, Wkwr‘ax 83 tr? 31%faaaT m WI; affw 3g I ” % HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. (S) No. 3575 of 2005 Petitioner Smt. Subhadra Upadhyaya Versus Respondents State of M. P. (now 6.6.} & others SB: Hon’ble Mr. Juaice Satish K. Agnihotri, J Shri A. K. Tiwari , Advacate for the petitioner. V. V. S. Murrhy, Deputy Advocate General with Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govt. ’ Advccate for the reepondente/State. 0 R D E R (Passed on this 9'“ day of March. 2007) The following crder 0f the Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitioner while working as Assistant Teacher in Primary School. Muru, Block - Takhatpur. District -— Bilaspur was transferred to Primary School. Kharkena, on the same terms and conditions, vide order dated 14.6.2000 (Annexure N1). 2. The Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Raipur vide interim order dated 26.3.2001 directed to maintain status quo in regard to the position of the petitioner as it was prevailing on that day. By vinue of the interim order the petitioner is continuing at the original place 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. 4. lt is welt settied principle of law that transfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decide as to where a particular other/employee be posted. keeping in view public interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has limited iurisdiction to interfere in the transfer matter and this 'Court can interfere only in the case of proved malande, 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. \ ()a ~ Sd/- ‘ Satjsh K. Agnihotri i Judge i E Thakur 1 r.