CWP No.10666 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.10666 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.8.2008 Natha Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Dadwal, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner, who was working as Incharge, Government High School, Hulka, District Patiala, was transferred to Government Senior Secondary School, Teipur, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala. The transfer order was communicated to the petitioner vide endorsement dated 13.7.2006. The petitioner impugned his transfer before this court on various grounds and levelled number of allegations against the respondents particularly respondent No.4. At the motion stage on 18.7.2006, this court was pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order (Annexure P-2) vide which the petitioner was transferred from Government High School, Hulka to Government Senior Secondary School, Teipur. CWP No.10666 of 2006 2 Separate replies have been filed on behalf of State of Punjab- respondent No.4 as well as added respondents 5 to 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he has been transferred at the behest of respondent No.4, who was inimical to him and had been instrumental in influencing respondents No.2 & 3 in ordering his transfer. The transfer was, therefore, totally malafide and impugned order transferring him deserved to be quashed. On the other hand, on behalf of the State it has been submitted that according to Rule 10 of the Punjab Civil Service (General and Common Conditions of Services) Rules, 1994, a member of Service is liable to serve at any place, whether within or outside the State of Punjab, on being ordered so to do by the appointing authority. Thus, no legal right of the petitioner has been infringed. The private respondents have, however, stated in their reply that the petitioner had been serving in the same school for the last more than 25 years and had vitiated the atmosphere of the school totally. They have also alleged that the petitioner was involved in certain immoral activities and had been harassing the girl students. Complaints in that regard had been addressed to the Chairman, Punjab State Women Commission, Chandigarh. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we are of the considered view that no interference is called CWP No.10666 of 2006 3 for in writ jurisdiction in the impugned order of transfer as transfer is an exigency of service and there is substance in the stand of the State that as per Rule 10 of the Punjab Civil Service (General and Common Conditions of Services) Rules, 1994, a member of service is liable to be transferred anywhere by the appointing authority. We do not feel any need to go into the allegations and counter allegations levelled by the petitioner and private respondents as it is only a case of transfer from one place to another, which does not infringe any legal right of the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed being devoid of any merit. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE August 29, 2008. 'rajpal'