IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No.2909/2025 CM No.7717/2025 SHAHNAAZ JEELANI AND ORS ...PETITIONER/APPELLANT(S) Through:-Mr. Faizan Ahmad, Advocate. Vs. THE COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT & OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S) Through:-None. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 21.11.2025 1) The petitioners have challenged Order No.301-Chirag of 2025 dated 17.11.202, whereby they have been transferred from their present places of posting to new places of posting within the same District. Petitioners No.1 to 6 have been transferred from one place of posting in District Budgam to another place of posting in the same District, whereas petitioners No.7 and 8 have been transferred from one place of posting in District Baramulla to another place of posting in the same District. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been engaged as Data Entry Operators (DEOs) on contractual basis under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) Scheme and have been working as such for the last many years. It has been further Sr. No.98 Suppl.List 3 WP(C) No.2909/2025 2 | P a g e submitted that as per the terms of engagement applicable to the petitioners, they are required to work at the places and against the posts to which their temporary engagement has been made and are not eligible for any transfer from their places of posting. It has been contended that vide Circular dated 27.08.2017 issued by the Director of SSA, it has been made clear that contractual employees appointed in SSA at a particular place do not have transferable service. In spite of this clear stipulation in the terms of engagement of the petitioners, they have been transferred from present places of posting in violation of terms of their engagement. 3) Heard and considered. 4) It is not in dispute that the petitioners have been engaged on contractual basis and their terms of engagement are governed by the conditions laid down in their engagement orders. Clause (2) of the engagement orders is relevant to the context and same is reproduced as under:- “2. The candidate shall be required to work at the place against the post to which his temporary engagement has been made and shall not be eligible for any transfer from his place of posting. However his/her services can be utilized on need basis, any where within the District for which he/she should not have any objection.” 5) From a perusal of the aforesaid clause it is clear that normally candidates engaged under the scheme on contractual basis are not eligible for any transfer from their places of posting. It, however, further provides that services of the engagees can be utilized on need basis anywhere within the District, for which he/she should not have any objection. Thus, the petitioners who have been engaged under the SSA scheme, though could not have been transferred from their initial places of posting, yet WP(C) No.2909/2025 3 | P a g e there is no fetter on the power of their employer to utilize their services at any other place within the District in which they have been engaged. 6) In the present case none of the petitioners have been posted outside the District in which they were initially engaged. Therefore, they can not have any grievance about their posting which has been effected pursuant to the impugned order dated 17.11.2025. The same by no stretch of reasoning can be termed as violative of terms of engagement orders. 7) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 21.11.2025 Sarveeda Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Sarveeda Nissar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document every page at bottom left side 24.11.2025 18:06