' AZHAR SALEEM BABAR (MEMBER).--- The above titled appeal was filed on 3-9-2008. The appellant has challenged the validity of order, dated 22-9-2007 which was later on endorsed on 21-8-2008 and 23-8-2008.
2. The facts arising out of the instant appeal are that the appellant is a junior teacher posted in Government Middle School, Dull Bandala, District Bhimber. He was transferred to High School, Barho instead of Mr. Ghulam Nabi on 12-9-2007. The memorandum of appeal transpires that the order of transfer of the appellant was protested all over the District D.P.I. Schobls ElementaryMuzaffarabad responding to the protest launched by the teachers, ordered cancellation of the proposal of transfers. D.P.I. Schools Secondary (respondent. No,2) also did the same on 28-11-2007. The appellant is of the opinion that after cancellation of proposals of transfers dated 27-11-2007 and 28-11-2007, the order of transfer of the appellant dated 22-9-2007 had practically lost its effect. It has also been averred that D.E,O. Schools Secondary District Bhimber cancelled his order of endorsement on 28-8-2008 but respondent No,1, D.P.I. Schools Elementary, Muzaffarabad wants to get his order implemented at any cost. It has been urged by the appellant that the order of transfer of the appellant is against the Government policy because, there was a complete ban on transfers and that the orders of transfers in the school cadre could be issued in the months of June and July.
3. Respondents Nos.6 and 7 filed their objections to appeal which were endorsed by the learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department as well. It has been preliminarily objected that the appellant does not have a locus standi to file the instant appeal and that the appeal has been filed after a period of one year which is hopelessly time-barred. Moreover, it has been contended that the appellant has a period of stay more of than 10 years in Middle School, Dull Bandla, whereas respondents Nos.6 and 7 have also served for more than 3 years at their respective stations, so the order of transfer was issued in accordance with the policy of transfers. It has also been contended that when the proposal for transfer of the appellant and others was moved, one of the incumbents Mr. Abdul Rehman challenged the same through a writ petition before the Honourable High Court and the High Court issued an interim injunction. Because of the interim injunction, the order of transfer of the appellant was not endorsed in due time.
4. On facts, the respondents have refuted the grounds taken by the appellant and defended the order impugned. The respondents have also stated that the order under appeal has been issued after getting relaxation by the concerned authority, so the impugned order has been issued in accordance with rules and policy.
5. The appellant filed replication on 29-10-2008 and claimed that the order of transfer of the appellant was endorsed on 22-8-2008 and 23-8-2008. The appeal was filed after 11 days of the said endorsement and hence is within limitation. The appellant is of the opinion that he did not need to file an application for condonation of limitation. The appellant has further urged that the writ petition before the High Court was not relevant with the matter in hand, so it is wrong to assume that the interim injunction granted by the High Court was an impediment in the way of implementation of the order under appeal.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given due consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar. The order of transfer of the appellant and respondents Nos.6 and 7 was issued on 22-9-2007. The order under appeal is final in its nature. The appellant has challenged the order, of his transfer on 3-9-2008 which is hopelessly time-barred. The appellant has himself stated that the order of his transfer was issued in violation of the transfer policy, so it was protested against, all over the District. It lucidly shows that the appellant was well in picture of the order of his transfer. The limitation in the instant case runs from the date of issuing the order and not from the date of endorsement. The order of transfer was never suspended or kept in abeyance by the authorities of the Education Department, so it is wrong to assume that the order under appeal had lost its effect, when it was resented 'by the teachers of the Bhimber District. The order under appeal being within the knowledge of the appellant has not been challenged within limitation, so the appeal is barred by the limitation.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant could not succeed in indicating any violation of the transfer policy in the case in hand. It has not been rebutted by the appellant that his period of stay at his present place of posting is more than 10 years, whereas the private respondents have also a stay of more than 3 years at their respective stations. The order under appeal looks to have been issued by the competent authority after getting relaxation on bans. Moreover, the compulsory period of stay has also been completed by the incumbents. So no policy or law looks to have been violated by issuing the order under appeal.
8. We are aware of the fact that the Trade Unions in the State have grown very strong and the activists of the Trade Unions do not tolerate an order against their wishes. But this practice cannot be appreciated and endorsed by the Courts. The appeal has been filed without any justification which merits no consideration at all. The appeal is dismissed and the appellant is ordered to bear the costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.