IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.13749 of 1991 Date of decision: December 22, 2008. Parshu Ram ...Petitioner(s) v. The Principal Chief Conservator, Haryana & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Rajmohan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Shri R.D. Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 1.12.1988 (Annexure P-5) and 24.1.1989 (Annexure P-6). Vide the first letter-cum- order, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Haryana directed that the petitioner who was working as a Patwari in the Forest Department be not relieved till further orders. It may be noticed here that the petitioner was being relieved to join as Patwari in the Revenue Department as he wanted to be permanently transferred from the Forest Department to the Revenue Department. Vide 2nd letter-cum-order dated 24.1.1989 (Annexure P-6), the Collector, Jind cancelled appointment of the petitioner as Patwari in the Revenue Department on transfer basis for the reason that firstly there was no policy of exchange of Patwari and secondly the Collector, Jind was not in a position to send some other Patwari in place of the petitioner to the Forest Department. Suffice it to note that the petitioner was appointed as a Patwari in the Forest Department, Haryana on 19.12.1985. He wanted to go to the Revenue Department but his efforts were shot down vide the impugned orders, referred to above. No interim stay was possible or granted in favour of the petitioner while admitting this writ petition. The resultant effect is that from the last over 23 years, the petitioner is working as a Patwari in the Forest Department only. It is well settled that the petitioner cannot claim transfer to any other Department as a matter of right nor such a policy or rule has been pleaded by him. Similarly, the record reveals that the Forest Department is unwilling to send the petitioner. In para 7 of the counter affidavit, a categoric stand has been taken that there is huge work in the Rohtak Forest Division where the petitioner is presently working and the work being in progress, the petitioner could not be spared for being adjusted in the Revenue Department. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. December 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge