HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.18752 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.07.2011 **** Deepak Kumar Vashisht . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Samir Rathaur, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG Punjab Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3 Mr. NP Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4 **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is serving as a District Coordinator on deputation under the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan and is posted as such in District Hoshiarpur. The petitioner is otherwise a regular ETT in the Education Department, Punjab. It appears that pursuant to a news item in a daily newspaper and some alleged complaints, respondent No.3, who is Member of the State Legislative Assembly and is holding the office of Chief Parliamentary Secretary issued telephonic instructions for the transfer of the petitioner and pursuant to those instructions, the State Government recalled the petitioner from deputation. (2). The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court. CWP No.18752 of 2009.doc - 2 – (3). A Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated December 8, 2009 directed to keep the petitioner’s transfer order in abeyance. (4). The respondents (except the State of Punjab) have filed their replies/affidavits explaining their respective position. (5). The Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan authorities have come up with a plea that they never proposed to transfer the petitioner and it was only on receipt of the telephonic instructions from respondent No.3 that the State Government was requested to transfer the petitioner. (6). It appears from the record that actually there were no complaints sent to the State Government or the Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan authorities against the petitioner, nor there existed any other adverse material on record against him. (7). In these circumstances, it appears that respondent No.3 while getting the petitioner transferred, acted hurriedly though there was no malice behind such action which was apparently taken in larger public interest. However, keeping in view the fact that no serious complaint was ever received against the petitioner and the very foundation of the transfer order is non-existent, the impugned transfer order dated 27.11.2009 (Annexure P2) (colly) are hereby quashed leaving it open to the competent authority to enquire into the complaints, if any, received CWP No.18752 of 2009.doc - 3 – against the petitioner subsequently in accordance with law. (8). Disposed of accordingly. Dasti. 06.07.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge