Madhu Sharma @APPELLANT@Hash J&K State Board of School Education, Jammu and ors

Caveat No.3289/2018

Heard learned counsel for the caveator, Caveat stands discharged.

SWP No.1725/2018

The petitioner is, essentially, aggrieved of impugned order bearing No.454-B of 2018 dared 18.07.2018 issued by respondent No.1 whereby she has

been transferred from Information Section JD to Sub Office Samba. The order impugned is a order of transfer simpliciter. It does not affect the status

of the petitioner. The petitioner is holding the post of Incharge Assistant Secretary in the Jammu and Kashmir State Board of School Education and

has to go to Sub Office Samba in the same capacity. Apparently, the petitioner had no reason or occasion to assail the aforesaid impugned order of

transfer which has been passed by the respondents in the interest of administration. The order impugned is not a single order of transfer of petitioner

but same effects the transfer of in as many as ten other similarly situated employees. With a view to carve out the grounds of malafides to assail the

impugned order of transfer the petitioner has given a sequence of events pertaining to his claim vis-Ã -vis the respondent No.3 who is looking after the

litigation work of the Board and alleged to have all along been favoured. It is further submitted that the impugned order is nothing but an attempt to

render the judgment dated 27.04.2017 passed in SWP No.2286/2014 ineffective, in terms of which the petitioner has been held entitled to get the same

benefits as have been given to respondent No.3. It is thus contended that though the matter is subjudice before the Division Bench in Letters Patent

Appeal yet the petitioner has reasons to believe that respondents want the petitioner to accept the order of her transfer so that they could raise a plea

before the Division Bench of this Court that petitioner has accepted his position as Incharge Assistant Secretary and therefore, the impugned judgment

passed by the Single Bench has been rendered ineffective and infructuous.Â

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and do not find any infirmity in the order impugned. The order

impugned is an order of transfer simpliciter and has nothing to do with the controversy decided by coordinate Bench of this Court in SWP

No.2286/2014 which is reportedly pending adjudication before the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal stated to have been field by the

respondents. The petitioner, prior to the issuance of order impugned, was also working in the respondent-Board as Incharge Assistant Secretary and

therefore, no difference would it make if she, on her transfer, joins in the same status and position in Sub Office, Samba. The plea of malafides sought

to be projected in this petiton is too specious to be accepted. This Court can well appreciate the ingenuity of the petitioner to carve out a ground to

assail the order impugned which otherwise is virtually unassailable in view of the fact that the same does not violate any of the rights of the petitioner.

It is not the case of the petitioner that he is holding a post which is not transferable or that she is entitled to remain posted in the office in Jammu till

her superannuation.Â

Be that as it may, petition lacks the merit and no case for interference in the order impugned is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed

along with connected IA.