DR. S.K. SARAD Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was promoted to the post of Principal from that of Lecturer in 1993. He was, thereafter, posted at various Colleges during the periods detailed below :-

(2.) Notice of motion was issued in the case on 1.10.1997 and a direction was issued to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in his post at the Government Mohindera College, Patiala and consequent thereto the respondents have made order Annexure P-4 dated 8th October, 1997 - complying with the Courts order and it is the admitted position that the petitioner continues to remain posted as Patiala. Two replies have been filed, one on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and another by respondent No. 3. In the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, the specific stand taken is that the order Annexure P-3 had been made at the instance of the petitioner's wife, who was earlier posted at Karamsar and both she as well as the petitioner had been posted at Sunam and Sangrur respectively to be near each other. It has further been pleaded in paragraph 9 of the written statement that the petitioner had not been visited by repeated and unwanted transfers so had been alleged by him in his writ petition but on the contrary the transfers from Malerkotla, Jagraon and Patiala had been made by the Government at his request, whereas the transfer impugned now had been made at the instance of his wife. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, attention of the Court has been drawn to Annexure P-1 to contend that it was an extract of the document and the full text of it has been appended as Annexure R-3/1. It has also been averred that the answering respondent's wife had been posted at Patiala since 3rd January, 1967 and the said respondent was to retire before the petitioner, it was prayed that he too should be posted at Patiala. Replication has also been filed by the petitioner and various additional annexures have been appended thereto.

(3.) Mr. Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has first and foremost argued that the transfer of the petitioner was the 5th one in four years and as the petitioner was to retire by the end of March, 1999, he should be allowed to continue at Patiala. This stand of the petitioner has been controverted by the learned counsel representing the State as well as the private respondent.