CW 10701/09 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.10701/2009 Jagdish Chandra Sharma Versus Atomic Energy Education Society & Ors Date of Order : 11/11//09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. BBL Sharma, for petitioner Mr. Dharmendra Jain, for respondent Matter has come up on application (No.39979/dt.07/10/09) filed U/Art. 226(3) of the Constitution of India seeking vacation of interim stay order dt.02/09/09. However, at joint request, looking to the nature of controversy, this Court considers it proper to finally dispose of the petition at admission stage. Petitioner initially joined service as Teacher in an Institution being run by Atomic Energy Education Society (respondent) (“AEES”) on being appointed vide order dt.24/08/87 (Ann.R/2A) and on having faced selection, was appointed as Head Master in respondent institution at Rawatbhata vide order dt. 16/08/02 (Ann.8). As per Cl.2 of appointment offer dt.25/05/89 (Ann.R.2B), post of Teacher was transferable; as such petitioner could have been transferred to any school under CW 10701/09 //2// respondent’s aegis without assigning any reason. Even in application dt.18/04/98 which he filled up for selection to the post of Head Master (Ann.R/3), petitioner preferred to work at Rawat Bhata or Indore. However, respondents took policy decision vide its Circular dt.13/03/2009 (Ann.5) in its 140th meeting held on 30/01/2009 to transfer services of Headmaster/ Headmistress (HMs) on par with Principals & Vice Principals in AEES from one centre to another after completion of 3-4 years. Petitioner was transferred from Rawatbhata (Rajasthan) to Turamdih (Jharkhand) vide order dt.07/04/2008 (Ann.1). It appears from the record that petitioner made an oral request, may be because of his some personal problems, to defer his transfer, taking note whereof, his transfer (Ann.1) was deferred till 30/04/09 with the approval of Chairman, AEES as is evident from order dt.08/07/2008 (Ann.3) and finally was relieved w.e.f. 25/07/09 vide order dt.25/07/09 (Ann.4). At this stage, petitioner approached this Court by way of instant petition with the grievance that his son is 100% disabled and no one is there to look after him and his wife is CW 10701/09 //3// also posted in respondent-AEES at Rawatbhata, in such circumstances, it would not be possible to serve the institution at the place of his transfer impugned. Further contention urged is that post of Head Master is not transferable and the respondent-AEES does not hold any authority/ competence to transfer him elsewhere other than place where he was appointed as Head Master at Rawatbhata vide order dt.16/08/2002( Ann.8). Counsel further submits that there is no administrative reason being assigned by the authority even in order of transfer or in their reply filed to the writ petition having been taken note of while transferring him at a remotest distance in Jharkhand vide order impugned, which has resulted in causing inconvenience to him in executing it. In their reply, respondents urged that petitioner is holding a transferable post and that apart, application form filled up by petitioner earlier for seeking appointment to the post of Head Master, itself, discloses that he was willing to join at Rawat Bhata or Indore, as the case may be. Moreover, once policy decision has been taken by respondent- AEES in its 140th meeting held on 30/01/09 to CW 10701/09 //4// transfer services of Headmaster/Headmistress on par with Principals & Vice Principals in AES from one centre to another upon completion of 3-4 years, the respondent can certainly transfer such Head Masters including petitioner. As regards difficulty, order has ben placed on record in counter to show that even wife of petitioner is also intended to be transferred to the place where petitioner has been transferred vide order impugned so that inconvenience if any on account of his transfer can be ruled out. Counsel for respondents AEES further submits that posts of Trained Graduate Teacher and so also higher posts in institutions are transferable to any school under its aegis without assigning reason and that apart, no malafide has been imputed against the authority which has transferred him – in absence whereof, this Court would not like to interfere in its limited scope of judicial review U/Art.226 of the Constitution. This Court has considered rival contentions of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. Circular dt.13/03/2009 (Ann.5) clearly CW 10701/09 //5// depicts that a decision has been taken by Governing Council of respondent-AEES in its 140th meeting held on 30/01/09 to transfer services of Head Master/Headmistress on par with Principals & Vice Principals in AEES from one centre to another upon completion of 3-4 years. Indisputably petitioner having served while holding post of Head Master, for last 6- 7 years which is more than the period as prescribed in Circular (Ann.5) at Rawat Bhata and the respondent AEES took decision in the interest of administration to transfer his services as Head Master to another institution under its aegis at Turamdih (Jharkhand). It is certainly in their competence and the transfer being incidence of service, petitioner while holding transferable post of Head Master cannot claim any lien to continue even at one station for all times to come. There cannot be said to be any error being committed by the authority in taking decision impugned. It is also not the case of petitioner that the authority who has ordered, is biased or there is any violation of statutory rules. As regards family difficulty of petitioner as urged before this Court, Counsel CW 10701/09 //6// for respondents has shown an order by which his wife serving in the institution alongwith petitioner, is also proposed to be transferred to the place where petitioner has been transferred so that his family may not face any further difficulty. As regards ground of disability of his son & other family sufferings, this Court has a sympathy for it but these are features which always continue to subsist in the life at any stage but that cannot be a solitary reason to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction U/Art.226 of the Constitution. Indisputably, petitioner has served at Rawatbhata since his initial appointment as Teacher vide order dt.27/08/87 (Ann.R/2A & 2B) and thereafter as Head Master); as such his transfer in the interest of administration certainly cannot be construed to have been exercised with malice by the authority. Consequently, writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed with no costs. Ad interim stay order dt.02/09/09 stands vacated. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p/6/ 10701CW09Nov11-DsTrns.doc