Q,A^ Q s-\c 18 2HE HX3H COUBT O? JUDICATCTRB A'F BILASPUR (CG) WRIT PETITIGN N0. i9^^ O? 2004 BBrwEW B.R. soni , aged about 48 years S/o late Sin Jagdish Erasad Ssnl, gub Sigineer, Janpad E^nchayat RaraanujganJ, District Surguja (03) • rfIS" PETITIONSK A N D 2. 3he State of Oihattisgarh, 'Sirough the Principal seeretary. Pand-iayat and Rural BeveloEmsit Departaiffit, Mantralay, D.K.s. Baxlding, Balpur (00). e osllector ^$&:^:M»^ Sirguja, District surguja (03). .-"T-""'K~e^5.V'^ 'Y'^g&^V (snbikapur). ^<e rta ft^'- .".^ ssssfxssgsts WRIT PETIIICN UNDER AR2ICLES 226/227 ©?THE CCNSTIWTION O? IHBB*! HtQBJRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SiNSLE BEMCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTR!. J. WRIT PETiTION N0.1975 OF 2004 Psgfioner : B.R. Soni versus Respondente The Stete of Chhattisgarh and another Present : Noneappearsrorthepetitioner. Mr. Ajay Dwvedi, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on 22 Day of February, 2007) The petitioner. while woridng as Sub Engineer, Janpad Panchayat, Ramanujganj, District-Surguja was transferred to Rurat Engineering Department, Division No. 2, Ambikapur on e same terms and conditions, vide impugned transfer orderdated 18-6-2004 (P-1). 2. This Court, vide interim order dated 7-10-2004, directed that the effect and operation of impugned order dated 18.6.2004 (Annexure P-1) would remain stayed until further orders. 3. Be friat as it may, with the passage of time, this petition has become infructuou&as period oftransfer is not applicable forever. At this point of time, there is no questio.n to examine the validity of the impugned transfer order. However, the respondente are at liberty to .-'" ^f' pass appropriate orders keeping in view the public Interest and administrative exigency, without insisting on compliance of the impugned transfer order. ^:;^-..;i"."-c"- - " -"^, 4. It is well settled principte of law that fransfer is an incident of service and it is for the employer to decided as to where a partcular officer/employee be posted keeping in view pubtic 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 tnata ffde, non-competence of authority passing the transfer order and transfer order not being in conformitywith ttie rules and regulations. 5. Inview of ttie above, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Bubhash