IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2785 of 2011 Date of decision: 30.5.2011 Sushila Thakur …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. Ors. ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner: Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J(oral) 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged her transfer from Government Primary School, Phagli to Government Primary School, Sanhog. 2. The main ground raised by the petitioner is that she is at Phagli only for 1½ years and further that she is a widow and it is difficult for her to walk from Ghanahatti to Sanhog. The private respondent is also a lady. She has served for four years at Government Primary School, Sanhog and now has been transferred to Government Primary School, 2 Phagli. Prior to her posting at Phagli, the petitioner was posted at Navbahar. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that both these stations are virtually part of Shimla town. Even Ghanahatti is barely about 15 Kms from Shimla and there is a bus in almost every five minutes towards Ghanahatti. 3. The petitioner may have to walk a little bit but the interest of the students is to be seen which is paramount and not the interest of the petitioner. If the teachers cannot walk for 3 Kms they can resign from the job but they cannot put the careers of the students at stake and put their own conveniences above the interest of the students. 4. In transfer matters, the role of the Court is very limited. The Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the administrative orders. The Apex Court has repeatedly held that in transfer matters the Court should exercise its judicial powers vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only when the transfer is actuated by mala fides or it is so arbitrary as to violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. In view of aforesaid observations, I find no merit in the present petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. May 30, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) (vt) Judge