JUDGMENT Jagdish Bhalla, J.
1. A preliminary objection has been raised by Senior Advocate, Sri Ashok Khare regarding maintainability of this petition on the ground that the petitioner is not the affected party, therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the order passed by her superiors.
2. My attention was brought to the fact that the petitioner aggrieved by an order dated 18.1.2002, whereby the transfer order of the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 were cancelled, has filed Writ Petition No. 4799 of 2002. The said writ petition was finally disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Director of Education, who shall decide the representation within a period of three months. The Director, in compliance of the directions of this Court, considered the matter and rejected the representation by an order dated 23.5.2002 upholding the cancellation of the transfer order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the documents furnished by the petitioner were also taken into consideration while deciding the matter. In fact, the representation of the petitioner has been decided by the Director of Education in compliance of the directions issued in Writ Petition No. 4799 of 2002 filed by the petitioner challenging the cancellation of transfer Order, therefore, it can be said that the petitioner is aggrieved party because it is his representation which has been decided by impugned order dated 23.5.2002. Accordingly, this petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable.
4. Now, I proceed to decide the matter on its merit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 belong to male cadre of teachers whereas they were posted and working in the Mahila Institution and the Director of Education wrongly came to the conclusion that the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 belong the Mahila Cadre. In support, the petitioner has relied upon the seniority list as contained in Annexure-R.A. 2 to the rejoinder-affidavit of Rajendra Prasad Agarwal opposite party No. 3. Annexure-R.A. 2 is the service book of opposite party No. 4, Shri Girdhari Lal Chaubey. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaints made by the petitioner were not taken into consideration while deciding the matter wherein apprehensions have been shown to ill effect on the students due to the presence of the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 in the Institution. It has further been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 were working in boys institution for quite some time earlier before being posted in the present Institution. Lastly, it has been alleged that the transfer of opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 has been cancelled because of the political reasons as alleged in paragraph 12 of the writ petition. The document contained in Annexure-1 to the rejoinder-affidavit is an extract of seniority list of the L.T. grade teachers of female cadre. The said complete list has been placed before this Court by Sri Ashok Khare, senior advocate. From the perusal of the said list, it is crystal-clear that the opposite party No. 3 belongs to female cadre. Further, from the perusal of Annexure-C.A. 8 to the counter-affidavit which is the list of L.T. grade teachers of female cadre, it is clear that the name of opposite party No. 4 figures at Sl. No. 63. Accordingly, there is no doubt even with regard to the status of opposite party No. 4 for being in female cadre.
5. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition, vague allegations have been alleged by the petitioner against opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 that they belong to the political party and they have some political clout and they exercised political pressure on the Joint Director of Education. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to appreciate that which political party opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 belong to and how and in which manner they have pressurized the Joint Director of Education. Further, the Joint Director of Education Mr. Avadhesh Chand is not party to the writ petition. It may be further recalled that the petitioner has already challenged the order of cancellation in Writ Petition No. 4799 of 2002 and after considering the matter on merit, no interference was shown by this Court.
6. I am of the considered opinion that in backdrop of catena of judgments of the Apex Court, cancellation of transfer order can be interfered only on two counts ; firstly, violation of law, secondly, allegation of mala fide. There is no foundation in the writ petition with regard to violation of law except the ground of cadre, which has already been decided hereinabove. As far as allegations of mala fides are concerned, vague allegations have been raised, which too the petitioner's counsel failed to substantiate.
7. With regard to the apprehensions, no writ can be issued on the basis of apprehensions as alleged on behalf of the petitioner. Lastly, the allegation regarding non-consideration of the complaints of the petitioner is concerned, it appears that all the documents, produced by the petitioner and the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 were taken into consideration. If the petitioner has any other complaint, it would be open for him to bring it to the knowledge of the Director of the Education for redressal in the public interest, particularly in the interest of students.
8. In light of above, no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. The writ petition is dismissed.