IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 17349 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 12.11.2009 Madhubala ... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner is working as ETT teacher in Government Elementary School, Rattar Chattar, Block Dera Baba Nanak, District Gurdaspur. Vide order 23.10.2009 (Annexure P-3), she was transferred to Government Elementary School, Khichan, District Gurdaspur, against the post of Tarlok Singh (respondent No.7 herein), on the basis of mutual transfer. Vide order dated 6.11.2009 (Annexure P-8), the aforesaid order has been cancelled on the application of respondent No.7 to get his mutual transfer to Govt. Elementary School, Sekhowal, against the post of Inderjit Kaur (respondent No.6 herein), who has agreed for mutual transfer to Govt. Elementary School, Khichian. The petitioner has challenged this order Annexure P-8 in the instant petition. CWP No. 17349 of 2009 -2- After hearing counsel for the petitioner and going through both the aforesaid orders, I do not find any ground to interfere in the said order. Vide order dated 23.10.2009, the petitioner got herself transferred from Government Elementary School, Rattar Chattar to Government Elementary School, Khichian, against the post of respondent No.7, only on the basis of mutual consent with respondent No.7. Since respondent No.7 has withdrawn his consent and got himself transferred from Government Elementary School, Khichian to Government Elementary School, Sekhowal, on the basis of mutual consent given by him with respondent No.6 Inderjit Kaur. Therefore, the consent, on the basis of which the petitioner was earlier transferred, has gone and the said transfer order has been cancelled by the impugned order. In the impugned order, respondent No.7 has been asked to file affidavit with regard to his consent, because he has changed his earlier consent. Therefore, merely on the ground that by the impugned order, respondent No.7 has been asked to file affidavit, it cannot be taken that he has not withdrawn the earlier consent. In these facts, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. No merit. Dismissed. November 12, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE