IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 966 of 2009 Date of Decision: January 21, 2009 Ms.Jagmati ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.K.L.Arora, 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 petition has been filed challenging what is alleged to be repeated transfers. The facts are that on 30.6.2008 the petitioner was transferred from Mandi to Ballah-II vice respondent No.3. After four months the roles were reversed. The petitioner was transferred back to Mandi and respondent No.3 was transferred back to Ballah-II. Now on 14.1.2009 the respondent No.3 has again been transferred to Mandi while the petitioner has been transferred back to Ballah-II. The net effect is that the transfer order dated 30.6.2008 which was disrupted has now been given effect to. It cannot be said to be a case of repeated transfers. Dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE January 21, 2009 sunita