IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.702 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 10.8.2009 Shyam Sunder Dahiya ......Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr.R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr.Vishal Malik, Advocate, for the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. 2. The appellant is Lecturer in Math-cum- Associate NCC Officer- II. He was posted at Sonepat, but he was ordered to be transferred to DIET Bisawanmeel in the year 2006. He challenged the said order and the writ petition was disposed of on 1.8.2006 with a direction to decide his representation. After considering the said representation, order of his transfer was cancelled on 15.9.2006. Thereafter, on 16.10.2008, he was again transferred to Sisana. He filed another writ petition. 3. The writ petition was contested on the ground that new policy dated 28.4.2008 had been formulated which does not envisage restriction on transfer of NCC Officers. 4. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition with the observation that the petitioner was not only Associate NCC Officer but also LPA No.702 of 2009 [2] Lecturer in Math with additional duty as NCC Officer for which he gets Rs.750/- per month. He had already continued at one place for sufficient time. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. The transfer being exigency of service, there can be no interference unless the decision of transfer is mala fide or arbitrary. 7. The respondents have taken a stand that the policy restricting transfer of NCC Officer was no longer in force. Even otherwise, the said policy could not stand in the way of transfer of a person who was Lecturer in Math with only additional charge of NCC Officer. Nor can violation of policy by itself be a ground for interference by Court as held in State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, 2004 (11) SCC 40 2, P ara 7. 8. In view of above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 9. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) August 10, 2009 JUDGE raghav LPA No.702 of 2009 [3] LPA No.702 of 2009 [4]