The relevant facts for the decision of the present Constitutional Petition are that the petitioner is a Naib-Qasid in Education Department. He was posted as such in the office of Deputy District Education Officer (M), Shakargarh and was transferred vide order dated 12-6-1989 to Government Middle School, Bhattian Dewan, Narowal. The petitioner has impugned this transfer order. The petition was admitted to regular hearing and notices were issued to the respondents, who have entered appearance and contested the petition.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Deputy District Education Officer was not competent to transfer the petitioner without prior approval of the District Education Officer. It is added that the respondent No, 2 has not exercised his powers independently rather order is mechanical and passed at the behest of the Education Minister. It is added that the transfer was against the policy of the Government and ban imposed.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No,3 has argued that the transfer was effected by District Education Officer and not by Deputy District Education Officer, therefore, it did not require any approval. It is added that the respondent No, 3 made an application for his transfer on compassionate grounds as three of his family members died in quick succession, therefore, there is nothing wrong with the transfer. It is concluded with the submission that the petitioner remained posted at Shakargarh for a period of more than three years, therefore, there is nothing wrong with his transfer.
4. The representative of the Department has submitted that the policy not to make transfer during the academic year is of no avail to the petitioner because it is only in respect of teaching staff. The purpose was that there should be no disturbance in the study of the students due the transfer of a Teacher. It is explained that there were many complaints against the petitioner as to his active participation in the local politics. The arguments are concluded with the submission that as per Section 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, the petitioner can be transferred any moment to any place.
5. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
The fact that the petitioner remained posted at Shakargarh for a period of more than three years is sufficient to refuse him relief in this Constitutional petition. This is not all. There were numerous complaints against him of participation in the local politics. Coupled with the fact that respondent No,3 moved for his transfer on compassionate grounds. The petitioner has been transferred by the District Education Officer, therefore, there is nothing wrong with the order. The petitioner has no vested right to serve at a particular place and that too for an indefinite period. On the other hand, as per provisions of Section 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, he can be transferred to any place.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction. There is neither any violation of law or rules. On the other hand, the petitioner was relieved from Shakargarh on 24-61989 and he resumed duty at new place of his posting on 26-6-1989 while the present writ petition was filed by him on 3-74989. This way the petition was filed after accepting the order, therefore, the petitioner is estopped by his own conduct to turn round and challenge the order.
7. The result is that there is no merit in this petition. The same is dismissed.