ORDER : 1. The writ petitioner, in CWP No. 3797 of 2021, one Kavita Kapoor, had earlier instituted, CWP No. 2508 of 2021, before this Court. Through a decision made thereon, on 22.04.2021, the hereinafter extracted order, as embodied in paragraph 4 thereof, hence became rendered: “4. Consequently, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make representation to the first respondent, within one week, in accordance with the transfer policy. On receipt of such representation, the said respondent shall decide the same, strictly in the light of transfer policy occupying the field, within two weeks thereafter. Till then, the impugned order of transfer dated 16.04.2021 (Annexure P2), shall remain stayed, if the petitioner has not already been relieved. 2. Since, in pursuance to the afore made verdict, as carried in the afore extracted paragraph, the writ petitioner’s representation has been rejected. Therefore, the writ petitioner is led to challenge the order of rejection, as made by the respondents concerned, upon the representation (supra), and, also is constrained to cast a challenge, upon the order, of, transfer, as made upon her, and, as embodied in Annexure P2. 3. The writ petitioner (supra), joined at Government DIET, Mandi on February, 2018. The fulcrum of the challenge, as cast to the impugned transfer order, becomes rested, upon it breaching the mandate, of, clause 5(i) of Annexure P3, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter: “(5) For effective management of DIETs, following instructions shall be follows : (i) For ensuring specialization and continuity Principals/lecturers PGTs of DIETs will have a fixed tenure of 5 years extendable on yearly basis thereafter. However, they will be transferable within DIETs.” In as much as, despite the prescription (supra), becoming carried therein, against the Lecturer(s)/PGT(s) of DIET(s), being posted outside, the DIET centre(s) concerned, until they complete, a tenure of, five years, at DIET(s), centre(s) concerned, rather through the afore impugned Annexure, theirs becoming completely flouted and breached by the respondents concerned. 4. However, they will be transferable within DIETs.” In as much as, despite the prescription (supra), becoming carried therein, against the Lecturer(s)/PGT(s) of DIET(s), being posted outside, the DIET centre(s) concerned, until they complete, a tenure of, five years, at DIET(s), centre(s) concerned, rather through the afore impugned Annexure, theirs becoming completely flouted and breached by the respondents concerned. 4. Likewise, the writ petitioner, in CWP No.3926 of 2021, though, joined at DIET centre concerned in the year 2017, yet, he also, in breach of the above extracted relevant portion of the apposite Policy, governing the tenure of posting, of, PGTs Lecturers, in the DIET(s) centre(s) concerned, rather became prior thereto, ordered to be transferred through, the making, of, the impugned transfer order, as becomes carried in Annexure P1, in CWP No.3926 of 2021. 5. Though, in both the writ petitions, the writ petitioners cast challenges, to, separate transfer order(s), as carried therein(s). However, since through the impugned transfer order, there is a visible, and, apparent breach of the above extracted relevant portion of the guidelines, appertaining to the normal tenure of Lecturers PGTs, hence serving at DIETs centre(s) concerned, thereupon, both the writ petitions are amenable, for, a common verdict, becoming pronounced thereon(s). 6. The learned Additional Advocate General, submits that, no reliance can be placed, by the writ petitioner(s), upon the above extracted relevant portion of the apposite Policy, as, it has remained unimplemented. However, the afore made submission is rudderless, and, hence becomes invalidated, more so, given upon its been published, in the Official Gazette, it became enjoined to become meted the completest deference, rather than it becoming untenably flouted and breached. The mere lack of non-implementation, of, the above relevant extracted portion, of, the Policy, does not render it to be wanting, either in apt legal efficacy nor also unless lawfully rescinded, rather through a subsequent Notification, it could be permitted to be non implemented by the respondents concerned. 7. In consequence, since through the impugned Annexure, there is a flagrant breach of the above extracted relevant portion of the Policy, and, when the normal tenure of five years, as prescribed therein, for PGTs Lecturers serving at DIET(s) centre(s) concerned, and, also with the afore prescription, being with the holistic purpose of ensuring continuity, hence for purposes of ensuring acquisition of specialization of Teacher(s) concerned, at DIET(s) centre(s) concerned. Therefore, for ensuring the holistic purpose (supra), behind the apposite Policy, being not eroded. Consequently, the impugned Annexure(s), are quashed and set aside. 8. The respondents concerned. in both the writ petitions, shall ensure, if the private respondents, in both the writ petitions are not holding the prescribed qualification(s), for theirs, serving as PGTs Lecturers, in DIET(s) centre(s) concerned, thereupon they be ensured to be repatriated, to, the Educational Institution(s) concerned, where the educational qualification(s), prescribed for theirs imparting teachings to the students concerned, rather stand completely satiated by them. 9. In view of the above, both the writ petitions are disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any. No order as to costs.