CWP No.116 of 2007. 6.5.2009. Present: Mr.R.L. Chaudhary, counsel for the petitioner. Mr.R.K.Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.R.M. Bisht and Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.Gs., for the respondents. The petitioner, who was appointed as Block Resource Centre Coordinator (BRCC) under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, has, by means of this writ petition, challenged the order of his transfer on the ground that since his appointment as BRCC was for a period of 10 years, he could not be transferred before the expiry of this period. This point has already been adjudicated by us while disposing of CWP No.885 of 2006, titled Hitender Kumar and others versus State of H.P. and others, and other connected matters, vide judgment dated 27.8.2007. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows: “In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered view that it is in the interest of the SSA as well as in the interest of the under privileged children for whose benefit this Abhiyan has been started to ensure the continuity of the persons appointed under the scheme. However, this does not mean that no BRCC can be repatriated to his parent post under any circumstances. We can envisage various circumstances where fresh appointments/transfers may have to be made. Some of them are set out below:- i) When the incumbent BRCC retires, he is to be replaced by a fresh appointee; ii) When the incumbent BRCC is promoted he may not want to forego his promotion and in such an eventuality, he will obviously have to be posted out and in his place a fresh BRCC shall have to be appointed; iii) There may be cases where the BRCC personally requests for being transferred out on some personal grounds; iv) The Project Director and the authorities who over-see the functions of the SSA have also the right to review the functioning of the BRCCs. In case, they find on the basis of tangible material that a particular person has been unable to perform adequately and has failed to deliver the expected results then even on the ground of non-performance, such a BRCC can be ordered to be repatriated to the parent department. However, before doing so, the entire material on the basis of which his performance is evaluated must be gone into; -2- v) There may be case where there are allegations of misconduct against the BRCC. In such cases also, the BRCC may be repatriated; vi) There may be cases where the BRCC acts in such a manner which adversely affects the target of the SSA. In such a case or any other case where the objectives of the SSA are likely to be adversely affected by the functioning of a particular employee as BRCC, the said person may be repatriated. However, in normal course, if the person holding the post of BRCC is working satisfactorily, he shall not be repatriated till the goals of the scheme are fully achieved and it comes to an end. With these observations, all the writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The State Government is directed to examine each case on its own merit in light of the observations made hereinabove.” This case is squarely covered by the above decision and the same is disposed of in light of the aforesaid directions. In view of the final disposal of the main writ petition, all the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Deepak Gupta), Judge . May 6, 2009. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.