IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 1972 of 2011. [O&M] Date of Decision: 2nd February, 2011. Manreet Kaur Petitioner through Ms. Jyoti Sareen, Advocate Versus 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner seeks quashing of the transfer order dated 22.11.2010 [Annexure P-4] as well as the order dated 07.01.2011 [Annexure P-9] whereby her representation against the transfer order has been rejected by passing a speaking order. The petitioner was appointed as a Teacher in Computer Faculty on contract basis by the Punjab ICT Education Society on 02.01.2007 and was posted at Government Middle School, Bahiram Sarishta in District Jalandhar. Thereafter, she was transferred to Government High School Rastago, District Jalandhar, followed by her further transfer on 11.07.2008 to the Government Senior Secondary School, Nathupur in District Hoshiarpur. The impugned order has again shifted the petitioner from Government Senior Secondary School, Nathupur to Sahid Master Malkiat Singh Government Senior Secondary School, Roorki Khas, District Hoshiarpur. The afore-stated transfer order was firstly impugned by the petitioner in CWP No. 21589 of 2010, alleging it contrary to the policy circular dated 29.03.2010. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Director General, School Education-cum- Member Secretary, ICT Education Society to consider the petitioner's representation and pass an appropriate order. Pursuant thereto that the Director General, School Education-cum-Member Secretary, ICT Education Society has passed the impugned order dated 07.01.2011 observing as follows:- “I have properly perused the complete office record. Apart from this, petitioner has also been heard personally. After perusing the office record, the undersigned has reached the conclusion that computer teachers are employees of Punjab ICT Society[PICTS] and Punjab Civil Services Rules or the rationalization policy made by Govt. for other regular employees is not applicable. The rationalization of the computer teacher has been done in accordance with the letter No. 4/3-ICT- 2008/Rectt./Rational/30165 dated 19.03.2010 issued by the Society. While proceeding according to this policy, the following computer teachers were working in the Senior Secondary School, whose date of joining in the school is as follows:- xx xx 5.0 After considering the entire issue, the undersigned has reached the conclusion that the transfer of Smt. Manreet Kaur computer teacher made by this office under rationalization is according to the Rules and this has been done keeping in view the number of teachers and students strength and their work load. According to the new law regarding pre and compulsory education to children Act, 2009, the re-deployment of the teacher is essential. Therefore, the representation given by Smt. Manreet Kaur is consigned to the record room”. Still aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record. In my considered view, the policy circular relied upon by the petitioner can not be construed or interpreted like a Statute. Suffice it to observe that the Circular lays down broad guidelines which are to be observed while declaring the contractually appointed teachers surplus in a particular institute and/or for their adjustment in other institute[s]. The author of the policy circular himself has considered the claim of the petitioner and has not found it in violation of the policy guidelines. No case to interfere with by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is made out. Dismissed. However, it shall not preclude the petitioner to make a representation to the Competent Authority for her adjustment against some vacancy which may be near to the place of her residence. If any such representation is made, the Competent Authority is directed to consider the same sympathetically and totally uninfluenced of its previous orders. Dasti. February 02, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE