Summarize the following court judgment. ivil Appeal Nos. 537 539 of 1970. Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 20 8 1968 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition Nos. 282	 283 and 293 of 1968. section K. Gambhir for the Appellant. section section Khanduja for the Respondents. 787 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA	 J. These three appeals by special leave are from the common judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowing the Writ Petitions filed by the six respondents and quashing the orders of their transfer made by the State Government in exercise of their power under section 94(7) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act	 1961	 hereinafter called the Act. The respondents were employees of the Municipal Council	 Sagar. They were employed as lecturers and teachers in the various Municipal Higher Secondary Schools run and managed by the said Municipal Council. Three orders were issued by the State Government on various dates in June	 1968 transferring certain lecturers and teachers serving under a particular Municipal Council to the schools run and managed by another Municipal Council. The six respondents were transferred by the said orders to various places. They challenged the order of transfer in the High Court on the ground that the State Government had no power to transfer them under section 94(7) of the Act. The High Court has accepted their contention and hence these appeals. We shall quote the relevant provisions of section 94 of the Act as they stood at the relevant time from the judgment of the High Court. There have been some amendments in the year 1973 with which we are not concerned. They read as follows: "94. Appointment of staff: (1) Every Council having an annual income of five lakhs of rupees or more shall	 subject to rules framed under section 95	 appoint a Revenue Officer and an Accounts Officer and may appoint such other officers and servants as may be necessary and proper for the efficient discharge of its duties. (2) Every Council not falling under sub section (1) shall	 subject to rules framed under section 95	 appoint a Sanitary Inspector	 an Overseer	 a Revenue Inspector	 and an Accountant and may appoint such other officers and servants as may be necessary and proper for the efficient discharge of its duties: . . . . . . . . (7) The State Government may transfer any officer or servant of a council mentioned in sub sections (1) & (2) and in receipt of total emoluments exceeding one hundred rupees to any other Council. " 788 The High Court has taken the view that the words "any officer or servant of a Council mentioned in sub sections (1) and (2)" occurring in sub section (7) mean "any officer or servant as enumerated or specified in sub sections (1) and (2): that is to say	 the officers who can be transferred under sub section (7) are only Revenue Officer	 Accounts Officer	 Sanitary Inspector and an Overseer	 a Revenue Inspector or an Accountant. No other officer or servant can be transferred. We do not think that the High Court is right in putting this restricted interpretation to sub section (7) of section 94. Other officers and servants who can be appointed by the Municipal Councils either under sub section (1) or under sub section (2) are also the officers and servants mentioned in these sub sections for the purposes of sub section Theoretically	 therefore	 the power does exist in the State Government to transfer them. We must	 however	 hasten to add that in case of employees getting small emoluments the power seems to be meant to be sparingly exercised under some compelling exigencies of a particular situation and not as a matter of routine. If it were to be liberally exercised	 it will create tremendous problems and difficulties in the way of Municipal employees getting small salaries. There may be hardly an employee serving under any Municipal Council who cannot be theoretically and literally covered by sub sections (1) and (2) and subjected to the exercise of power of transfer under sub section The High Court in support of its view has referred to sub section (4) of section 94 wherein only the officers enumerated in sub sections (1) and (2) are specified. Obviously the said sub section does not cover the cases of other officers and servants as mentioned in sub sections (1) and (2). The language of sub sec. (7) is in contrast to that of sub section (4) and	 instead of lending support to the view of the High Court	 goes against it. It was argued for the respondents that they are employees of the Schools run and managed by the Municipal Councils but not of the Councils themselves. We do not think that this argument has got any substance. Education department is one of the departments of a Municipal Council. Duties of the Council are enumerated in sub section (1) of section 123	 clause (v) which provides for "establishing and maintaining primary schools". Under section 124 "a Council may	 at its discretion	 provide	 either wholly or partly out of the Municipal property and fund	 for all or any of the following matters	 namely (c) furthering educational objects." Thus establishment and running of Higher Secondary Schools by Municipal Councils are envisaged under the Act and the lecturers and teachers appointed in the various schools 789 are undoubtedly the officers and servants of the Municipal Councils. For the reasons stated above we hold that the State Government had the power to transfer the respondents. But it is not clear why the power was exercised in the case of the respondents. In any event	 learned counsel for the appellant assured us that the State is more anxious for the correct interpretation of the law engrafted in section 94(7) of the Act than to enforce the order of transfer against the respondents. In the result while clarifying the position of law	 we dismiss the appeals but make no order as to costs. N.K.A. Appeals dismissed.

The respondents were employed as lecturers and teachers in the various Municipal Higher Secondary Schools run and managed by a Municipal Council in the State. The State Government transferred certain lecturers and teachers serving under a particular Municipal Council to the Schools run and managed by another Municipal Council. The respondents writ petition challenging the order of their transfers was allowed by the High Court on the ground that no officer other than those mentioned in section 94(7) namely Revenue Officer	 Accounts Officer etc. could be transferred. In the State 's appeal the respondents contended that they were employees of schools run and managed by Municipal Councils but not of the Councils. ^ HELD: 1. The High Court was not right in putting a restricted interpretation on section 94(7) of the Act. The other officers and servants who can be appointed by the Municipal Councils under sub section (1) or sub section (2) of Section 97 are also officers and servants mentioned in these sub sections for the purposes of sub section (7). Theoretically	 therefore	 the power does exist in the State Government to transfer them. [788 B C] 2. The argument that the respondents are the employees of schools run and managed by the Municipal Councils but not of the councils themselves has no substance. Education department is one of the departments of a Municipal Council. Section 124 envisages the establishment and running of Higher Secondary Schools by Municipal Councils and therefore the lecturers and teachers appointed in the various schools are officers and servants of the Municipal Councils. [788 G H	 789 A] 3. In case of employees getting small emoluments the power to transfer should be sparingly exercised under some compelling exigencies of a particular situation and not as a matter of routine. [788 C D]