CWP No.15642 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.15642 of 2008 Date of decision: 18.11.2008 Manjit Kaur and others ..Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. S.K. Sandhir, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate. Ashutosh Mohunta, J. (oral) The petitioners are J.B.T./E.T.T. Teachers now working in different schools in District Ludhiana. Their main grievances in this writ petition is that the transfer order passed by respondent No.4 (Annexure P-6) is not being implemented and they are not being allowed to join their duties at their new place of postings. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been averred that “the transfer is a mere incidence of government service, whether it is to be implemented or not lies in the domain of the employer. It is on this account that a conscious decision was taken while implementing the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan programme that the post CWP No.15642 of 2008 2 of resource persons in (Block Resource Centers) BRCs and (Cluster Resource Centres) CRCs would directed to be filled up by transferring existing senior and experienced teachers who have shown temperament for this kind of job. The resultant vacancies in the schools were to be filled up by trained primary teachers or para teachers, subject to the State policy on this and NCTE guidelines. The minimum salary applicable to fresh teachers or para teachers would be provided from SSA.”. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length and are of the considered opinion that an employee can not seek a mandate seeking his transfer to a particular place. In Kendriya Vidyai Aya Sangathan Vs. Damodar Prasad Pandey and others, (2004) 12 Supreme Court Cases 299, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that transfer is an administrative exigency of service and unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafides or is made in violation of any operative guidelines or rules the courts should not ordinarily interfere with it. In the present case, the petitioners have prayed that the orders cancelling their transfer be quashed. This request also cannot be acceded to as an employee has no right to be posted at a particular place. Learned counsel for the State states that the petitioners have been engaged as E.T.T. teachers but they have been entrusted to oversee the construction work of the school building. CWP No.15642 of 2008 3 In view of the above, we direct the respondents to entrust only those duties to the petitioners which are commensurate with their job. Disposed of. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE November 18, 2008 'rajpal'