JUDGMENT 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 23.11.2019 passed by respondent No.2 thereby transferring the petitioner from Primary School, Kunwarpura, Tahsil Seonda, District Datia to Government Primary School, Gyara, Tahsil Seondha, District Datia. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that he is working on the post of Assistant Teacher. It is the case of the petitioner that the transfer of the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (In short 'the Act, 2009', as three teachers were posted in the Primary School, Kunwarpura, Tahsil Seonda, District Datia against the total strength of 49 students whereas the petitioner has been transferred to Government Primary School, Gyara, Tahsil Seondha, District Datia where the total strength of student is 98 and four teachers are already posted there. It is submitted that on online portal, three teaches have been shown to be posted in Government Primary School, Gyara, Tahsil Seondha, District Datia whereas there are four teachers and the name of Smt. Geeta Kushwah has been missing from the portal. It is further submitted that the petitioner is working as Booth Level Officer and, therefore, he is treated to be on deputation to the Election Commission and the transfer of the petitioner has been made without taking concurrence of the Election Commission. 3. It is further submitted that local MLA and other representatives have also recommended for cancellation of the transfer, therefore, the respondents be directed to decide the said recommendation of the Local MLA. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. This Court in the case of Devendra Rajoriya vs. State of M.P. by order dated 6.12.2019 passed in W.P.No.26384/2019 has held as under:- ' Shri Brijesh Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pawan Singh Raghuvanshi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents/ State. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 23/11/2019 (Annexure P1) passed by respondent No.4, by which the petitioner has been transferred from UEGS Dharam Singhkapura, Pithan, Block Ater, District Bhind to Primary School Kamanpura, Block Mehagaon, District Bhind. (2) It is fairly conceded by the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working at the present place from the date of his appointment. (2) It is fairly conceded by the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working at the present place from the date of his appointment. It is submitted that the transfers are to be made from 22/06/2019 to 31/07/2019, however, the transfer order has been passed during ban period. Since the transfer order has been passed without approval of the Chief Minister-in Coordination, therefore, the transfer of the petitioner is bad. Further, there are only two teachers for twentyone students and if the petitioner is transferred, then only one teacher would be left, which would be contrary to the provisions of Section 25 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, 2009 [in short '' the Act, 2009'']. The petitioner has been transferred to Primary School Kamanpura, Block Mehagaon, District Bhind where two teachers are already working there with less number of students. Thus, it is submitted that not only the transfer order has been passed during the ban period, but it is violative of Section 25 of Act, 2009 and there is no administrative exigency. (3) Per contra , it is submitted by the Counsel for the State that so far as the question of ban on the transfer is concerned, the School Education Department by letter dated 15th November, 2019 has relaxed the ban from 15.11.2019 to 23.11.2019. (4) So far as the requirement of maintaining ''pupil-teacher ratio'' under Section 25 of the Act, 2009 is concerned, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State that every step would be taken to maintain the ''pupil-teacher ratio'', however, the transfer of the petitioner be not quashed on the said ground. So far as the administrative exigency is concerned, it is submitted that even according to the petitioner himself, he has spent his entire service career at the present place of posting and since transfer is an exigency of service, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that he should be posted at a particular place. (5) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. (6) Section 25 of the Act, 2009 deals with ''pupil-teacher ratio''. Thus, it is the duty of the State to ensure that the ''pupil-teacher ratio'' is maintained as required under Section 25 of the Act, 2009. Therefore, it is believed that the State would post some teachers in place of the petitioner in order to maintain the ''pupil-teacher ratio''. (6) Section 25 of the Act, 2009 deals with ''pupil-teacher ratio''. Thus, it is the duty of the State to ensure that the ''pupil-teacher ratio'' is maintained as required under Section 25 of the Act, 2009. Therefore, it is believed that the State would post some teachers in place of the petitioner in order to maintain the ''pupil-teacher ratio''. However, this Court cannot act as an appellate authority and cannot quash the transfer order because it will disturb the ''pupil-teacher ratio'' under the Act, 2009. (7) So far as the transfer during the ban period is concerned, the School Education Department by letter darted 15th November, 2019 has relaxed ban on the transfer till 23/11/2019. Thus, it is incorrect to say that the transfer order has been issued during the ban period. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the petitioner has already spent his entire service career at the present place of posting and as the employee cannot claim that he/she should be posted at a particular place and the transfer is an exigency of service, no case is made out warranting interference. (8) This petition fails and is hereby dismissed. " 6. Although it is the case of the petitioner that the name of one Smt. Geeta Kushwah is missing from the online portal of showing the names of the teachers posted in Government Primary School, Gyara, Tahsil Seondha, District Datia but it is not the case of the petitioner that Smt. Geeta Kushwah has not been transferred and she is still working there. Furthermore, it is for the respondents to ensure that the 'pupil-teacher ratio' is not disturbed. Thus it is hoped and believed that the respondents shall ensure that the 'pupil-teacher ratio' is maintained as per the provisions of the Act, 2009. 7. So far as the contention that the petitioner is working as Booth Level Officer for the purposes of preparation of voter list is concerned, it cannot be said that the petitioner is on deputation to the Election Commission as no notification of any election has been issued so far. 8. So far as the recommendation made by the Local MLA is concerned, the petitioner has failed to point out any relevant provision from the transfer policy to show that in case of such a recommendation, the respondents are under obligation to cancel the transfer order. 8. So far as the recommendation made by the Local MLA is concerned, the petitioner has failed to point out any relevant provision from the transfer policy to show that in case of such a recommendation, the respondents are under obligation to cancel the transfer order. On the contrary, the petitioner being a Government employee should not have approached the politician for cancellation of his transfer. 9. Be that whatever it may. 10. It is well established principle of law that the transfer is an exigency of service and nobody can claim that he should be posted at a particular place. Furthermore, the petitioner has not pointed out the date from which he is posted at the present place of posting. 11. Thus it is clear that the petitioner must have completed more than his regular tenure of three years. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference. 12. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed .