CWP NO.493 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 493 of 2009 Date of Decision: January 13, 2009 Sunita ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Ashwani Kumar Bura, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This writ petition has been filed challenging the transfer of the petitioner from Govt. Primary School, village Nirthan in Sonepat Block to Govt. Primary School in village Kanwali also in Sonepat. It is alleged that one Guest Social Studies Mistress who was working in Govt. Primary School, Nirthan was troubling the petitioner taking advantage of being a relation of the Sarpanch-respondent No.4. The petitioner complained about the maltreatment being meted out to her and she was internally adjusted in Govt. Primary School, Sector 23, Sonepat for her security up to 31.3.2008. Subsequently by order dated 30.6.2008 the petitioner was transferred to Govt. Primary School, Kanwali. The petitioner moved a representation and, CWP NO.493 2 the said order was initially cancelled by another order dated 8.10.2008 and the petitioner was again internally adjusted at Govt. Primary School, Sonepat. Since there was a full complement of teachers over there, by order dated 6.11.2008 the petitioner was sent back to her original posting at Govt. Primary School, Nirthan (presumably with the hope that the earlier controversy had died down). However, that was not to be, and there was still resistance by the village Panchayat to the posting of the petitioner. In these circumstances order dated 7.11.2008 was passed retransferring the petitioner back to Govt. Primary School, Kanwali. This order was challenged by way of CWP No.19318 of 2008 which was disposed of on 12.11.2008 with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. The said representation has been rejected by the impugned order dated 24.12.2008 and that is how the petitioner is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the repeated transfers of the petitioner are against the transfer policy. In reply the stand taken is that utmost care was taken to accommodate the petitioner and that is why her first transfer to Kanwali was cancelled on her representation to see whether she could again work peacefully at the original place of posting viz. Nirthan and it was ultimately for consideration of her security that her representation was rejected and she was ordered to join at Kanwali. In my opinion there is no arbitrariness or unfairness in the transfer orders. What ever be the reason for the opposition of the petitioner at Nirthan the respondents in any case cannot be held liable for the same. In the circumstances the petitioner being a lady and there being a threat to her CWP NO.493 3 the only thing which could be done was to transfer her. It has further been mentioned in the written statement that village Kanwali is at a distance of merely 12 Kilometers from Sonepat and , therefore, it cannot even be argued that the petitioner has been put to some special hardship. In the circumstances this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE January 13, 2009 sunita