LAXMI DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge herein, through present writ filed by Laxmi Devi and another, is to orders, Annexure P-10 and P-11 dated December 11, 1995 passed by Shri Sudarshan Kaushik, District Primary Education Officer, Sonepat, vide which representations filed by the petitioners for their transfer at the place of posting of their husbands were rejected.

(2.) Brief facts of the case reveal that the petitioners were working as J.B.T. Teachers in Mahendergarh and Panipat Districts respectively and they were appointed on transfer as such in Sonepat District vide order, Annexure P-1, dated May 25, 1995. Their appointment in Sonepat District, as per case of the petitioners, was cancelled by this Court in an earlier petition filed by them vide orders, Annexure P4, dated August 23, 1995. However, in compliance of the orders passed by this Court, the petitioners were to submit their representation which were to be disposed of by the concerned authority after hearing them. They did file their representation Annexures P-6 and P-7 which, as referred to above, were dismissed vide two separate orders of the even date, Annexures P-10 and P-11. It is these two orders, as mentioned above, that have been challenged in the present writ.

(3.) The only contention raised by Mr. R.K. Malik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, in support of the plea that orders, Annexes P-10 and P- 11 are illegal, centers around the right of petitioners to be accommodated at the place where their husbands have been posted as per policy decision dated August 13, 1993 (Annexure P-5) issued by the Government on that behalf. The same deals with Inter-District transfers of District Cadre lady teachers of Haryana Primary Education Department Learned counsel has placed reliance upon Clauses 2,3,4 and 5 of the policy decision referred to above, which read thus: