HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BJLASPUR W.P.<S'» No. 3802 of 2005 Thakur Petitioner Versus Respondents 1. Ghanshyam Patel. son of Shri Parsshwar Patet, Assistant Teacher, Primary Schooi Baghoud, BIocR Dabhara, Distnct, Dlstrict Janjgir, Chhatfcisgarh. State of ChhatSisgarh. Through Secretar/. Schooi Education Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattssgarh). 2. Director, Public insfructions Chhatttsgarh, Pensi'on Bada, Ra'pur (Chhattfegarh). 3. Distrjct Educatjon Officer, DIstrict Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. SB: Hon'bfe Mr. JusSsce Sstssh K. Agnihotrs, J Shri Anupam Dubey, Advocaie forthe peiiooner. Msss Sunlte Jaln, Panel law^er for the responden!s,/State. ORDER ( Passed on thte 13th day of March. 2007) Ths foSSowing order of the Court is passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The petitjoner whiie working as Assistant Teacher at Primary School, Baghoud was transferred to MiddSe SchooS. Parshi Maii, Kharoudea, on the same terms and condjtions, vide impugned order dated 10.9.2001 (Anneyure A/1). 2. The Madhya Pradesh Administratsvs Tnbunal at Rajpur vk3e jnterim order dated 22.9.2001 directed to maintain status quo In regard to the position of the petstioner as v»asprevaSSing on 17.9.2001. By virtue of the {nterim order the petstsoner Is continuing at the origina! place of posting. 3. Be that as 11 may, v/jth the passage of time thls petiSion has become infructuous as period of transfer is not appSicabSe forever. At thjs pojnt of time there is no question to examine the va!jdsty of the transfer order. However, the respondente are at Siberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in viev» ths pubiic interest and adminjstrative exigency. without insistSng on compiiance ofthe impugned transfer order. 4. It is weli settled princjple of !aw that Sransfer is an incident of servic^ and st is for the empSoyer to decide as to where a particuiar officer/empioyee be posted, keeping In ^ew pubjjc interest as well as administrative exigency. This Court has Simited |urisdictson to interfere in the transfer matter and thls Court can interfere on!y in the case of proved malafide, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformjty with the rules and regutations. 5. In viev^ of the above, Shis petition stands dtsposeci of. No order as to coste. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge