CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16453 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 04, 2009 Sunita .....Petitioner VERSUS Fiancial Commissioner & Principal Secretary, Education Department, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. R. S. Tacoria, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This writ petition initially filed as Public Interest Litigation has now been placed before this Court as the Bench did not treat this writ petition to be in public interest. The grievance raised in the petition apparently does not seems to be justiciable. The petitioner has filed this petition to press for implementing the transfer order of respondent No.3, who was working as District Education Officer and has been transferred as Deputy Director (School), in the Office of Director General and Commissioner Education, Haryana. As per the petitioner, respondent CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16453 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: No.3 was entitled to seven days joining time but has not left the charge of his earlier appointment, though he has been transferred since 19.9.2008. By making reference to the Rule position, the counsel for the petitioner would contend that respondent No.3 was required to join on expiry of seven days but still continues to hold the earlier post, though even the extended joining period has also expired. The petitioner has himself placed on record an order dated 29.7.2009, whereby Special Secretary to Government, Haryana, has ordered that the transfer order of respondent No.3 dated 19/22.9.2008, has been kept in abeyance for next four months. The submission that respondent No.3 is misusing her position and is not being shifted as she is related to local M.L.A would not give the petitioner a cause to file this writ petition. No right of the petitioner is being infringed for which he can invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner can not seek a writ of quo-warranto as the appointment of respondent No.3 is not contravening any binding rule of law and in the absence of violation of a mandatory provision of the Constitution or a statute, the Court is not to issue such writ. Respondent No.3 is occupying post on being appointed by the competent authority. She is not an usurper of the public office. How in these facts, the petitioner can pray for writ of quo-warranto. Though transferred, the order has been held in abeyance. It is for the Government to see and ensure implementation of the transfer order. No justiciable right is seen, which can be enforced through a writ Court. The submission by the counsel that they have no where to go on account of respondent No.3 being related to M.L.A would not be a CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16453 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: reason enough for this Court to invoke its writ jurisdiction. The transfer otherwise is a administrative matter. To enforce or to seek implementation of the transfer order of third person, a writ petition can never be an appropriate remedy under any circumstances whatsoever. The reference by the counsel to the words “for any other purpose” in Article 226 of the Constitution of India to press the petition is also not well placed. These when read with entire concluding words of the Article clearly indicate a party must establish that he has a right and same is illegally invalidated or threatened. (See State of Orissa Vs. Ram Chandra Dev, (AIR 1964 SC 685). If respondent No.3 had made certain payments, which are not justified, she may be separately made answerable for that. Even for taking action, there will be alternative remedies available to the petitioner and the same can not be enforced by filing a writ petition as framed. I am, thus, clear in my mind that the present writ petition is clearly not maintainable and, therefore, is dismissed in limine. November 04, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE