DHARAM CHAND Vs. STATE THROUGH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has assailed his transfer from Govt Girls Higher Secondary School, Nagrota Jammu to Govt Higher Secondary School, Malhar, District Kathua made vide Govt Order no. 1352 -Edu of 2003 dated 7 -8 -2003. Vide this order petitioner has been posted and transferred as Incharge Principal, Govt Higher Secondary School, Malhar vice one Balbir Singh and respondent No.3 has been posted as Incharge Principal Govt Girls Higher Secondary School, Nagrota vice the petitioner on promotion from the post of Senior Lecturer. This transfer has been challenged on two counts, firstly that the petitioner has been transferred pre -maturely after the period of nine months and secondly that in the transfer order he has been shown as Incharge Principal, whereas he is a regularly appointed Principal. Petitioner has submitted that his transfer is only to accommodate respondent No.3, who is a blue -eyed boy of the respondents. Some allegations have been made that respondent No.3 has served all along in Jammu and is doing tuition work. It is also stated that respondent no.3 was posted at Batote but he hardly attended his duty and continued the tuition work at Jammu. There was a protest against him by the students at Batote and instead of taking any action against him he has been awarded his posting near to Jammu City to enable him to continue the tuition work at Jammu. Petitioner claims to have served in the remote areas during his long tenure of service right from his appointment as Teacher, and now again he has been posted just after nine months.

(2.) WRIT petition has been contested on the ground that the allegations made by the petitioner are baseless. As many as 94 persons have been transferred including the petitioner and respondent No.3. Same is in public interest and in the interest of administration.

(3.) RESPONDENT no.3 who filed separate objections has given details of places where he has served from time to time. It is argued on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner does not have any right to challenge the transfer which is an incidence of service. It is only in the exigency of service that the petitioner has been transferred from one place to another and respondent No.3 also transferred on promotion. Regarding the claim of the petitioner that he is a regularly promoted principal, but shown as Incharge Principal, Mr. Johal has submitted that at the time of his transfer he continued to be Incharge Principal. Petitioner has placed on record copy of Govt order No.244 -Edu of 1999 dated 24 -2 -1999, where -from it is evident that he was regularized/promoted as Principal of Higher Secondary School w.e.f. 1 -2 -1996 though in the impugned order he has been shown as Incharge Principal. Be that as it may whether the petitioner is a Incharge Principal or a regular Principal, the same does not constitute a ground for challenging the transfer. If petitioner has already acquired the status of that of a regularly appointed/promoted principal, the same is not affected by mentioning the word "incharge" in the transfer order. Therefore, no benefit is available to the petitioner on this count.