HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case No. WP(C) 3178/2025 Date of pronouncement:- 14.11.2025 Date of uploading:- 18.11.2025 Poonam Devi …..Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate. Vs U.T. of J&K and Ors. .…. Respondent(s) Through: None. CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE ORDER 14.11.2025 01. Keeping in view the nature of controversy, the matter taken up on Board for hearing. 02. Heard. 03. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashment of order dated 27.10.2025 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jammu Bench, Jammu [the Tribunal] and further seeks the quashment of orders dated 23.11.2024 and 25.11.2024, respectively passed by respondent Nos. 4 & 5, and also prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus and prohibition so as to continue to perform her duties as teacher at Kasturba Gandi Balika Vidyalaya (KGBV) Bani. 04. The facts necessary be noticed in brief. 05. The petitioner initially came to be engaged as Rehbar-e- Taleem (RET) teacher in KGBV Bani vide order 09.06.2011 and Sr. No. 36 P a g e | 2 WP(C) No. 3178/2025 her services came to be regularized as General Line Teacher vide order 31.01.2017. However, vide order dated 23.11.2024 passed by respondent No. 4 (ZEO Bani) all the Heads of Zone Bani were asked to relieve the attached/deployed/detailed to work/rationalized teaching staff to their original places of posting. In compliance to this order, respondent No. 5, Headmaster KGBV Bani vide order dated 25.11.2024 relieved the petitioner and directed her to report to the original place of posting. 06. Fact remains that the petitioner after regularization of her services as General Line Teacher though continue to draw her salary against the post at UPS Fouja but remained attached in KGBV Bani and this fact stated to have been reflected in the service book of petitioner also. The other unrebutted fact remained that KGBV Bani falls under central sponsored scheme under the aegis of Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), where only contractual, vocational and non-vocational staff renders their services. 07. In the above backdrop, the orders dated 23.11.2024 & 25.11.2024 respectively came to be passed thereby relieving her from KGBV Bani to her original place of posting in the best interest of the students and also in view of the fact that after regularization of services for all practical purposes petitioner was borne against the post at UPS Fouja as per her service book record and withdrawal of monthly salary, but only she was permitted to perform duty from KGBV, Bani. P a g e | 3 WP(C) No. 3178/2025 08. The petitioner being dissatisfied from the relieving order, as she wanted to continue even after regularization of her services at KGBV Bani, therefore, approached the Tribunal, questioning the orders of relieving from KGBV Bani and to report to the original place of posting i.e. UPS Fouja from where she continue to draw her salary. However, the Tribunal observed that the services of petitioner were regularized as Teacher Grade-II came to be posted in UPS Fouja as reflected in her service book and KGBV is a creation of central sponsored scheme where only contractual, vocational and non-vocational staff provides their services; coupled with the fact that petitioner has applied for three days casual leave on JK Attendance App of School Education Department through UPS Fouja as such it shows that petitioner had joined her original place of posting, but on the basis of interim direction passed by the Tribunal she continued to serve as KGBV Bani, therefore, on the basis of this factual backdrop, the tribunal has dismissed the O.A. vide impugned order. 09. 09. The bone of contention is that petitioner is not provided opportunity by the Tribunal to file the rejoinder and further refuted the fact that she had joined at UPS Fouja inasmuch as also she has questioned the competence of the respondents to relieve her from KGBV Bani. Nonetheless, petitioner neither put forth any compelling reason which warrants the opportunity to file the rejoinder nor any factual foundation laid to show the P a g e | 4 WP(C) No. 3178/2025 malafide or incompetence on the part of respondents in passing the impugned orders. 10. The warp and woof of the entire controversy in brief is that the services of the petitioner after came to be regularized from RET to General Line Teacher, she borne on the post of teacher at UPS Fouja as this fact stands substantiated in absence of any rebuttal that she is not drawing salary as a General Line Teacher from UPS Fouja or this very fact is not reflected on her service book. Therefore, mere continuation in KGBV, Bani even after regularization of her services cannot confer indefeasible right to the petitioner not to perform her duties against a post from where she is drawing salary. 11. It is noteworthy that once petitioner has accepted the conversion of her services from RET to General Line Teacher and further continue to draw salary from UPS Fouja in that event she cannot be heard to say that she is unwilling to perform duty in a school from where she has been continuously drawing her salary for last about seven years. 12. Petitioner in the case on hand is seemingly blowing hot & cold in the same breath, therefore, if the unwillingness of the petitioner to perform duty at UPS Fouja is accepted in that event, she also forfeits the status as General Line Teacher, because record shows that KGBV, Bani falls under Central Sponsored Scheme under the Samagra Shiksha where only contractual, vocation and non-vocational staff can provide their services. P a g e | 5 WP(C) No. 3178/2025 13. Be that as it may, the scope of interference in such like matters is no more res integra as it is well settled that the government servant has no indefeasible legal right to be posted for ever at one particular place, since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable post from one place to another is not only an incident but a condition of service. 14. Once an employee is posted against a transferable post, he does not have a right to remain in a particular post of location indefinitely. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in State of U.P Versus Gobardhan Lal 2004 (11) SCC 402. 15. In view of the preceding analysis, we find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the Tribunal, therefore, this petition is found without merit, as such, same is dismissed accordingly, along with connected application(s). (SHAHZAD AZEEM) JUDGE (SINDHU SHARMA) JUDGE JAMMU 14.11.2025 Mihul Mihul Singh 2025.11.17 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document