Dismissed

Satinderjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Aug 2010CWP/13455/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought to quash an order transferring her from one school to another, citing alleged sick leave needs and contrasting it with the cancellation of a transfer of another teacher. The court found no medical justification for transfer between the assigned stations and held that no prima facie right to claim transfer existed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as no ground for interference was made out.

Satinderjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CWP No. 13455 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 13455 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: August 02, 2010

¶5

Satinderjeet Kaur

¶6

.........PETITIONER(S)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

......RESPONDENT(S)

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

¶11

Present: Mr. K.S. Dhillon, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).

¶12

AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

This petition has been filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 03.02.2010 (Annexure P-4) and order dated 15.04.2010 (Annexure P-5) qua the petitioner.

¶14

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner joined as Head Teacher in Government Primary School. Gauspura, Block-I, District Gurdaspur in August 2006. One Smt. Rajinder Kaur, ETT Teacher had been serving in the said school for 14-15 years. The said person namely Rajinder Kaur has been creating a number of problems regarding which a number of complaints have been made to various authorities. The complaints made by Panchayat and the petitioner have been placed on record.

¶15

Learned counsel contends that vide Annexure P-4, the

¶16

CWP No. 13455 of 2010

¶17

¶18

petitioner as well as Smt. Rajinder Kaur were posted out at different places. It has been stated that the petitioner is suffering from an incurable disease. While the petitioner has been posted out, the order of transfer of respondent no. 4 was cancelled just after about 2 months vide Annexure P-5.

¶19

Challenge in this petition is to order of transfer of the petitioner. The petitioner was transferred out on 03.02.2010. For six months, the order has been accepted. It seems that the petitioner is more aggrieved and agitated by cancellation of order of transfer of respondent no. 4.

¶20

In equity or on humanitarian grounds a person might seek transfer to a place where better or appropriate medical facilities are available in the context of some serious ailment of an employee. In the case in hand, however, no such case is made out by learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seeks intervention in writ jurisdiction to be transferred from Manoharpura, Block Qadian, Disrict Gurdaspur to Gaunspura, Block Batala-I, District Gurdaspur. Neither of the stations has special medical facility. This enforces the view of the Court that the writ petition has been filed more for cancellation of transfer of the private respondent vide order Annexure P-5.

¶21

It is not the case of the petitioner that service conditions of the petitioner have been changed to the prejudice of the petitioner. The petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has no right to claim transfer in view of Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No. 11458 of 2007 decided on 11.09.2007 entitled Jasbir Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board.

¶22