CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12461 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 07, 2007 Giri Raj Jain and others .....Petitioners VERSUS Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. R. K. Malik, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Surya Partap, Advocate, for the petitioners. ( in C.W.P. No.12461 of 2008). Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the petitioners. ( in C.W.P. No.14206 of 2008). Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners in Civil Writ Petition Nos.12461 of 2008 and 14208 of 2008, were employees working at Sessions Division, Rohtak. They have been transferred to newly created Sessions Division at Jhajjar. They have accordingly filed abovesaid writ petitions, seeking writ of mandamus directing respondents to seek CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12461 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 2 }: their option and also from similarly situated employees for allocating the staff to the newly created Sessions Division, Jhajjar, in accordance with the option so exercised. 15 petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No.12461 of 2008 and 11 petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No.14208 of 2008 have made this common prayer. All these petitioners were employed at Rohtak Sessions Division, which had Sub-Divisions at Meham, Jhajjar and Bahadurgarh, apart from Rohtak Sessions Division. On 6.3.2008, the Rohtak Sessions Division has been divided into two Sessions Division i.e. Rohtak Session Division and Jhajjar Sessions Division. Meham Sub Division now forms part of the Rohtak Sub Division whereas Bahadurgarh and Jhajjar Sub Divisions are now part of Sessions Division Jhajjar. The petitioners would claim that when one Division is bifurcated into two or more divisions, the employees are required to be asked to give their options and they would have a right to make a choice of the Sessions Division where they wish to work. The petitioners complain that they have been transferred without their options on the basis of pick and choose. The petitioners claim to have filed various representations but despite that no options were invited and the petitioners transferred. The petitioners would make reference to some earlier precedent, where Sessions Division Narnaul was divided into two Sessions Divisions i.e. Narnaul and Rewari. The petitioners would state that employees working were asked to give their options and they were so transferred on the basis of their options. Notice of motion in these two writ petition was issued. Reply on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 has been filed. In the reply, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12461 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 3 }: it is disclosed that keeping in view the exigencies of the service within the Sessions Division, Rohtak, the petitioners were transferred on 1.3.2008, which order they have deliberately not placed on record. At that time, Rohtak Sessions Division was comprising of all the four sub divisions and District and Sessions Judge was well within his right to pass the transfer and posting orders of the employees. As per the reply, the Sessions Division was bifurcated on 6.3.2008. It is also stated in the reply that no rights of the petitioners, whether civil or Constitutional, have been infringed. No order adversely effecting their service condition was made. It is also stated that transfer orders were passed in the interest of work and exigencies of service. Their representation/mercy appeals were considered by the competent authority and have been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners could have been transferred to the newly created Sessions Division only on the basis of their options and not otherwise. In support, he has placed reliance on Jawaharlal Nehru University Vs. Dr.K.S.Jawatkar and others, AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1577. In this case, some officials were posted at Impal i.e. Centre of Post Graduate Studies set up by Jawahar Lal Nehru University. This Centre was later made integral part of Manipur University and the order of transfer in this background was viewed and it was held that transfer of a teacher from one University to another could not be without his consent. The facts of this case were entirely different. Otherwise, the petitioners have not been able to show as to what right they would have to insist that their transfer can be done only on the basis of their option. Transfer is an incidence of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12461 OF 2008 (O&M) :{ 4 }: service. The petitioners earlier also could be transferred to any of the places in Sessions Division, Rohtak. The petitioners were well aware of this position ever since the time of their appointment. The transfer in this case was done, when there was only one Sessions Division. The petitioners have not been able to show that they have legal right to insist upon for seeking their option before transferring them. To my mind, the petitioners have no legal or Constitutional right to insist that they be transferred only as per their option. The transfer has been made due to exigencies of service. No case for interference is, therefore, made out. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. July 07, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE