ORDER : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs: “(i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating to issuance of memo dated 16/12/2008 (ANNEXURE P/1) from the possession of the respondents, for its kind perusal. (ii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a appropriate writ quashing and sitting aside the impugned memo dated 16/12/2008 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent no.3. (iii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. (iv) Any other relief/relief, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be granted. (v) Cost of the petition be also awarded.” 2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that, the petitioner was initially appointed as Lower Division Teacher vide order dated 30.06.1986 issued by the respondent no.4 against the regular vacant sanctioned post in regular pay scale and posted at Church of Christ Primary School, Kududand, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). Right from the beginning the petitioner's work was full of sincerity, honesty and without there being any complaint or any adverse remarks, whatsoever, giving maximum results to the Governing Body/Management of C.C.M.I. The petitioner always work with utmost satisfaction of the superior authorities concerned and pertinently her work was also richly appreciated and was never communicated any adverse remarks in the entire service records. 3. The Church of Christ, Mission in India, Kududand, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) (here-in-after referred to as C.C.M.I.) is a registered society under the Registrikaran Society Act-19 and having Registration No.11/1953-54. The Church of Christ Mission in India, Kududand, Bilaspur is 100% grant in aid Body & Society receiving absolutely full aid from the State Government right from the date of establishment. The C.C.M.I., Kududand, Bilaspur is having five School/Educational Institutions, out of which there are two Primary Schools, one Middle School, one Higher Secondary School (Hindi Medium) fully run and controlled by the Management and one Higher Secondary School (English Medium) run and controlled by the management. The C.C.M.I., Kududand, Bilaspur is having five School/Educational Institutions, out of which there are two Primary Schools, one Middle School, one Higher Secondary School (Hindi Medium) fully run and controlled by the Management and one Higher Secondary School (English Medium) run and controlled by the management. The two Primary Schools of C.C.M.I. Society are situated at Kududand and Chanduwabhata, Tarbahar, Bilaspur whereas one Middle School situated in the same building of the Society and the other two Higher Secondary Schools of Hindi Medium and English Medium each are also situated at Kududand, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). It is further submitted that all these Schools are fully governed, controlled and managed by the governing body and the Executive Committee. The petitioner's husband i.e. Shri H. Walter who is retired Head Clerk of the Vetenary Department, Bilaspur, is an active member of the Church of Christ, Kududand, Bilaspur and is also elected elder of the Church of Christ, Kududand, Bilaspur vide election held on 08.02.1998. In the Church of Christ, Kududand, Bilaspur there are as many as seven elders elected by congregation vide election held on 08.02.1998. 4. Tthe respondent no.4, C.C.M.I., Kududand, Bilaspur filed a Civil suit on 17.02.1998 through the secretary, Ishwari Lal seeking a declaration that election of Board of elders vide dated 08.02.1998 is illegal and have no right to interfere with the property and affairs of Church of Christ Mission in India, Kududand, Bilaspur and further the elected Board of Elders to be restrained from interfering with the property and affairs of Church of Christ, Kududand, Bilaspur. The respondent No.3 Church of Christ Mission in India, Kududand, Bilaspur also sought a declaration that an arrangement made by the Executive Magistrate vide dated 31.01.1998 be held null and void. The petitioner's husband who is an elected Elder of the Church of Christ, Kududand, Bilaspur was one of the party and defendant in the Civil suit. The respondent No.3 Church of Christ Mission in India, Kududand, Bilaspur also sought a declaration that an arrangement made by the Executive Magistrate vide dated 31.01.1998 be held null and void. The petitioner's husband who is an elected Elder of the Church of Christ, Kududand, Bilaspur was one of the party and defendant in the Civil suit. The petitioner's husband and so also Board of Elders contested the suit and filed their written statement and submitted that the Church of Christ, Kududand, Bilaspur having its own separate assets and liability and the property vested in the Church of Christ do not in any manner belong to the plaintiff of the Church of Christ Mission in India and absolutely vested with the exclusive members of the Church of Christ, Kududand, Bilaspur and have further right to offer prayer and perform other religious activities of the Church of Christ, Kududand, Bilaspur. The plaintiff Church of Christ Mission in India does not have any right to enjoy or interfere with the function and affairs of Church of Christ, Kududand, Bilaspur. 5. In the Civil Suit filled by the Church of Christ Mission in India against the elected Board of Elders, the plaintiff Church of Christ Mission in India also sought a temporary injunction but the same was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide dated 30.03.1998 against which upon appeal before the Additional District Judge, the learned Appellate Court below granted temporary injunction vide order dated 24.07.2001 restraining interference of all seven Elders of Church of Christ elected vide election held on 08.02.1998 at Church of Christ, Kududand, Bilaspur. 6. Feeling aggrieved by temporary injunction order dated 24.07.2001, all the seven elected Elders Church of Christ approached before the Hon'ble High Court by filling Civil Revision under section 115 of CPC, which was registered as Civil Revision No. 494/2001, which is still pending before this Hon'ble Court. 6. Feeling aggrieved by temporary injunction order dated 24.07.2001, all the seven elected Elders Church of Christ approached before the Hon'ble High Court by filling Civil Revision under section 115 of CPC, which was registered as Civil Revision No. 494/2001, which is still pending before this Hon'ble Court. This Court upon hearing the Civil Revision No. 494/2001 on several dates intervened into the matter personally in order to resolve the dispute arose in-between seven elected Elders of Church of Christ, Kududand, Bilaspur and the Church of Christ Mission in India, Kududand, Bilaspur and ultimately this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 10.10.2001 while admitting the aforesaid Civil Revision passed the following orders:- "Be that as it may, with a bleeding heart, I direct that the arrangements made for Sunday shall be made effective for all the seven days, for 12 moths, for whole of the year until final disposal of this revision petition. I would again sincerely request the parties to settle their dispute outside the Court and prove that they belong to the faith who believe in fraternity and brother-hood instead of fighting with each other." 7. However, the aforesaid dispute or incidence which arose in-between the Society Church of Christ Mission in India and also the elected Elders of Church of Christ, Kududand, Bilaspur ought not to have affected in any way the service record/condition of the petitioner but after the order dated 10.10.2001 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Civil Revision No. 494/2001, it appears that the respondent No.3 Church of Christ Mission in India earned several displeasure against the petitioner, who is the wife of one of the party in the Civil Revision i.e. Shri. H. Walter and further in order to frustrate, harass and victimize her for no fault and also to achieve same target without there being any administrative exigency during the ban period and session, in a most arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and irrational manner issued the transfer order vide dated 16.10.2001 transferring the petitioner from the present place of posting to outside the district at Primary Mission School, Manohar Nagar, Chando, District Sarguja (Chhattisgarh). 8. 8. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid transfer order dated 16.10.2001 approached before this Hon'ble Court by filing a Writ Petition being registered as W.P. No. 2292/2001, wherein this Hon'ble Court upon hearing the matter has been pleased to pass an interim order vide dated 08.11.2001 and the petitioner was continued at the present place of posting. Thereafter, ultimately this Hon'ble Court vide order 22.03.2006 has been pleased to disposed off the Writ Petition with certain observation and further directed the respondents not to insist upon compliance of the impugned transfer order i.e. order dated 16.10.2001, however with liberty to the respondents/authorities to pass appropriate order posting the petitioner in the public interest and administrative exigency, in accordance with law. However, now all of a sudden, once again in the mechanical manner without their being any administrative exigency during the mid academic session and further without there being any public interest, in a most arbitrary & illegal manner, the petitioner has been transferred vide impugned transfer order 19.08.2008 issued by the respondent No.3, once again to the same place i.e. Mission Primary School, Manohar Nagar, P.O. Chando, District Sarguja (C.G.). The existing school is a 100% Government aided school whereas the school where the petitioner is transferred is Non-Aided school and that to outside the District and about 300 Km away from Bilaspur. The petitioner is at the fag end of her service carrier, she is the only earning member of the family and her husband is retired person, she has to take care of her husband and her two children. The petitioner is also a patient of acute Diabetes and undergoing regular treatment at Bilaspur. The petitioner has also represented to the respondent authorities vide dated 22.08.2008 & 06.09.2008, but the same has failed evoke any response and it appears that the respondent No.3 & 4 are adamant not to accede with the request of the petitioner with some oblique motive. Further, the petitioner has also submitted the leave application vide dated 10.09.2008 along with the medical certificate. 9. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned transfer order dated 19/8/2008 issued by the Respondent No.3, approached before this Hon'ble Court by filing a writ petition being registered as WPS No. 5350/2008. Further, the petitioner has also submitted the leave application vide dated 10.09.2008 along with the medical certificate. 9. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned transfer order dated 19/8/2008 issued by the Respondent No.3, approached before this Hon'ble Court by filing a writ petition being registered as WPS No. 5350/2008. In the aforesaid writ petition, on 11/11/2008, this Hon'ble Court upon hearing the matter has been pleased to issue notice to the respondents on merit and stay both. Petitioner has learnt that the notices have been served upon the respondents No.3 & 4 sometimes in the last week of November, 2008. However, during the pendency of the said writ petition and after receiving the notice from this Hon'ble Court, has issued a memo/letter dated 16/12/2008 to the petitioner directing the petitioner to join duties at the transferred place within 4 days failing which her duties shall stand terminated. 10. The petitioner, after receiving the aforesaid memo/letter approached Respondent No.3 personally along with a representation and a copy of the writ petition in order to inform that a writ petition bearing WPS No.5350/2008 has been filed challenging the transfer order dated 19/8/2008 and this Hon'ble Court has been pleased to issue notices to the all the respondents vide its order dated 11/11/2008. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and further taking into consideration the fact that the subject matter is subjudiced before the Court of Law, therefore, further action pursuant to the memo/letter dated 16/12/2008 may be kept in abeyance. However, respondent not only refused to meet the petitioner nor accepted the representation of the petitioner pursuant to which the petitioner has sent the representation and copy of the writ petition by Speed-post. The petitioner, however, surprised to learn that representative and the copy of writ petition sent to the respondent no.3 by post has been returned back by the postal department un-served on untenable grounds. 11. The petitioner, however, surprised to learn that representative and the copy of writ petition sent to the respondent no.3 by post has been returned back by the postal department un-served on untenable grounds. 11. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition No. 5350/2008, petitioner has also been trying to meet the respondent No.3 personally in order to pursue the matter with regard to transfer and taking a lenient view by the respondent No.3 and also with regard to posting her somewhere within the Bilaspur District wherein, to utter surprise of the petitioner, petitioner shocked to learn that her services have been terminated for non-compliance of memo/letter dated 16/12/2008 and the petitioner is no more in the services of the respondent No.3. 12. The District Education Officer, vide letter dated 28/12/2008, taking cognizance of the transfer order dated 19/8/2008 and further memo/letter dated 16/12/2008 and action taken thereof by the respondent No.3, has sought certain information from respondent No.3 and further while filing reply to WPS No. 5350/2008, has seriously condemned issuance of impugned transfer order dated 19/08/2008 and further action taken by the respondent No.3, and submitted that respondent No.3 did not even inform the concerned authorities i.e. District Education Officer prior to passing of the transfer order whereas prior sanction is required as per circular dated 12/07/1984 and, therefore, issuance of transfer order was contrary to circular issued vide dated 12/07/1984. The District Education Officer, the respondent No.2, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, time and again sought clarification and information from the respondent No.3 and respondent No.4. However, the requisite information as desired by the DEO was not furnished by the respondent No.3 & 4. 13. The transfer order dated 190/8/2008 and further impugned memo/letter dated 16/12/2008 and the action taken thereof by the respondent No.3 is not only bad illegal and arbitrary in nature but also in violation of principles of natural justice and further the provisions of C.G. Ashashkiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmchariyon ke Vetano Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam 1978 & C.G. Ashashkiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmchariyon ke Padachyut Karne/Seva Se Hatane Sambhandhi Prakriya) Niyam 1983, hence this petition. 14. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned memo/letter dated 16.12.2008 issued by the respondent No.3 and the action taken thereof by the respondent No.3 terminating the services of the petitioner is not only bad, illegal & arbitrary in nature but also violative of provisions of Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India. The impugned memo/letter dated 16.12.2008 issued by the respondent No.3 and the action taken thereof by the respondent No.3 terminating the services of the petitioner is not only bad, illegal and arbitrary in nature but also in violation of principles of natural justice and professed norms of service jurisprudence in as much as the fact that without any inquiry whatsoever conducted by the respondent No.3, the services of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Teacher have been terminated. 15. The impugned memo/letter dated 16.12.2008 issued by the respondent No.3 and the action taken thereof by the respondent No.3 terminating the services of the petitioner is not only bad, illegal and arbitrary in nature but also contrary to the well settled principles of law as no separate order of termination has been issued by the respondent No.3 in respect of the petitioner under the provisions of the Act of 1983. The impugned memo/letter dated 16.12.2008 issued by the respondent No.3 and the action taken thereof by the respondent No.3 terminating the services of the petitioner is further contrary to well settled principles of law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Noverties India Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal & Others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 124 . The impugned memo/letter dated 16.12.2008 issued by the respondent No.3 and the action taken thereof by the respondent No.3 terminating the services of the petitioner is further contrary to well settled principles of law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Noverties India Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal & Others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 124 . Since, the respondent school is run & managed by respondent No.3 education society which is receiving 100% grant in aid from the state government therefore is "state" with in meaning of Article 12 of the constitution of India and expected to act in just & fair manner, and further since the service condition of the petitioner is governed by M.P./C.G. Ashashkiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmchariyon ke Vetano Ka Sandaya) Adhiniyam 1978 & M.P./C.G. Ashashkiya Shikshan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmchariyon ke Padachyut Karne/Seva Se Hatane Sambhandhi Prakriya) Niyam 1983, therefore the order dated 16.12.2008 is not only bad, illegal & arbitrary in nature being contrary to the provisions of the aforesaid Act of 1978 & Rule 1983 but also smacks of malafide intentions in view of the several quarries raised by the District Education Officer and the stand taken by the state government in the W.P. No. 5350/2008, which is pending consideration before this Court. In view of th above, counsel for the petitioner prays for quashing and sitting-aside the impugned memo dated 16/12/2008 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent no.3. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “NOVARTIS INDIA LIMITED V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS”, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 124 and in the case of “THE STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER V. RAM NARAYAN DAS” reported in AIR 1961 SC 177 . 16. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2/State strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. No. 2292/2001 in which interim orders were passed in favour of the petitioner on 08/11/2001. The above writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous with the passage of time, vide order dated 22/03/2006 (Annexure P/5). The above writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous with the passage of time, vide order dated 22/03/2006 (Annexure P/5). This Court was pleased to give liberty to the respondents/authorities to pass appropriate order for posting the petitioner in the public interest and administrative exigency in accordance with law. The petitioner had challenged the order of transfer dated 19/08/2008 in W.P.(S) No. 5350/2008, which has been disposed of by this Court on 19.11.2018. The impugned order dated 16/12/2008 has been passed by the respondent no.3 for execution of the earlier order of transfer dated 19/08/2008 and the respondents have directed that if the petitioner does not follow the order of transfer, in that case, she would be terminated. The school run by the respondents no. 3 and 4 at Kududand is receiving 100% grant in aid from the respondents/State and for transfer of staff of the non governmental aided school prior sanction of the Superintendent of Divisional Education/District Education Officer is required. 17. In case of the petitioner, the respondent no. 3 did not even inform the above authorities prior to passing the order of transfer. The prior sanction is required as per circular dated 12/07/1984 (Annexure R/1). The petitioner has been transferred by the respondent no. 3 and 4 without seeking prior sanction from the concerned authorities, therefore it is not as per law. The impugned transfer order passed by the respondents no. 3 and 4 is not in accordance with the order passed by this Court dated 22/03/2006 (Annexure P/5) by which the respondents were given liberty to pass appropriate order in public interest and administrative exigency "in accordance with law". Since the prior sanction was not obtained by the respondent no.3 for transfer of petitioner, therefore, the termination order dated 16/12/2008 (Annexure P/1) is also not in accordance with law. The respondent no. 3 and 4 have not only violated the rules by which it was provided that prior sanction of the District Education Officer/ Superintendent of Divisional Education is required prior to passing the transfer order of the staff of non governmental aided institutions, but they have not cooperated also when the queries were earlier made by the District Education Officer- the respondent no. 2 from them. Therefore, it is clear that the order of transfer has been passed without following the rules. 18. 2 from them. Therefore, it is clear that the order of transfer has been passed without following the rules. 18. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 3 & 4 also strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was appointed on 30.06.1986 vide Annexure P/2 on temporary basis and till date i.e. on the date of which the petitioner has been terminated from services, her services were not confirmed. Vide order dated 19.08.2008 the petitioner was transferred from Primary School Kududand, Bilaspur to Mission Primary School, Manohar Nagar, P.O. Chando, District Sarguja and in compliance of the said transfer order, the petitioner was relieved from Primary School Kududand, Bilaspur on 20.08.2008, but the petitioner has not complied with the transfer order and not joined at the transferred place and therefore by the impugned order, it was directed to the petitioner to join the duty at Mission Primary School, Manohar Nagar, within four days from the receipt of notice, otherwise services of the petitioner with the Church Christ Mission in India shall stand terminated as on the date of 20.08.2008 (ANNEXURE R-3/1), when she handed over the charge of her office to Head Mistress of Primary School, Kududand, Bilaspur. The appointment of the petitioner is purely temporary appointment on the basis of the contract signed by the petitioner and according to Clause (10) of the contract the petitioner can be transferred to any government recognized or unrecognized school administered by bodies with whom the Church of Christ Mission in India has mutual arrangement. Copy of contract dated 01.07.1986 signed by the petitioner is ANNEXURE R-3/1. A bare perusal of the appointment order reveals that appointment of the petitioner is purely on temporary basis and service of the petitioner has not been regularized till the date of her termination. The Secretary of TEAMS vide letter dated 08.08.2008 requested the respondents that there is scarcity of teachers in the school run by TEAMS, therefore, experienced teachers should be sent from the Church of Christ Primary School. Copy of letter dated 08.08.2008 is ANNEXURE R-3/3. The petitioner has not joined her services inspite of her relieving vide order dated 20.08.2008 and the petitioner remained absent from the service without any information, therefore, this petition is without any merit and liable to be dismissed. 19. Copy of letter dated 08.08.2008 is ANNEXURE R-3/3. The petitioner has not joined her services inspite of her relieving vide order dated 20.08.2008 and the petitioner remained absent from the service without any information, therefore, this petition is without any merit and liable to be dismissed. 19. I have heard the contentions put forth by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record. 20. It is an admitted fact in this case that the respondent No.4 is private institution which is run by the respondent No.3-Department i.e. Church of Christ Mission in India. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 & 4 submits that as per contract dated 01.07.1986 (ANNEXURE R-3/1) action of the respondents is according to the contract and the petitioner is also duty bound to following the conditions of contract. Section 10 of the contract is as under: “10. TRANSFERS:- Transfers may be affected by the Governing body of its teaching staff to any of its schools, Government recognized or non recognized. Transfers may also be effected to schools administered by other private bodies, with whom Church of Christ Mission India has mutual arrangements, such mutual arrangement exists between Tribal Educational Agricultural a Medical Society, Suryapara, P.O. Sitapur, Surguja, Distt. M.P. The rights of the personnel concerned shall stand fully protected.” 21. As per respondents No. 2 & 3, government circular dated 12.07.1984 for transfer of a staff of the non-governmental aided school, prior sanction of Superintendent of Divisional Education/ District Education Officer is required. M.P. The rights of the personnel concerned shall stand fully protected.” 21. As per respondents No. 2 & 3, government circular dated 12.07.1984 for transfer of a staff of the non-governmental aided school, prior sanction of Superintendent of Divisional Education/ District Education Officer is required. Circular dated 12.07.1984 reads as under:- ^^fo"k; % /kkfeZd rFkk Hkk"kkbZ vYila[;d leqnk;ksa ds }kjk LFkkfir ,oa Á'kkflr v'kkldh; 'kkykvksa esa LVkQ dh fu;qfDr@dk;Zokgh vkfn ds laca/k esaA lUnHkZ & bl dk;kZy; ds Kkikad Øekad&vuq@,@1493] fnukad 11-04-1984 ¼ifji=@vuqnku@1@84&85½A bl dk;kZy; ds mi;qZDr Kki }kjk /kkfeZd rFkk Hkk"kkbZ vYila[;d leqnk;ksa ds }kjk LFkkfir ,oa Á'kkflr v'kkldh; f'k{k.k laLFkkvksa esa LVkQ dh fu;qfDr gsrq p;u ds ckn lEiw.kZ tkudkjh lfgr ÁLrko lEcfU/kr f'k{kk vf/kdkjh dh vksj vuqeksnu gsrq Hkstus gsrq funsZ'k fn;s x;s FksA bl lEcU/k esa v/khuLFk dk;kZy;ksa esa ;g Hkze gks x;k gS fd osru forj.k gsrq fu;qDr f'k{kk vf/kdkjh dks vuqeksnu gsrq tkudkjh ÁLrqr djuk gSA bl lEcU/k esa fuEukuqlkj fLFkfr Li"V dh tkrh gS%& 1- /kkfeZd rFkk Hkk"kkbZ vYila[;d leqnk;ksa ds }kjk LFkkfir ,oa Á'kkflr v'kkldh; f'k{k.k laLFkkvksa esa LVkQ dh fu;qfDr gsrq p;u ds ckn lEiw.kZ tkudkjh lEcfU/kr l{ke vf/kdkjh vFkkZr mPprj ek/;fed fo|ky; ds ekeys esa laHkkxh; f'k{kk v/kh{kd ,oa ek/;fed rFkk ÁkFkfed fo|ky;ksa ds ekeys esa ftyk f'k{kk vf/kdkjh dks vuqeksnu gsrq Hkstk tkosA 2- blh Ádkj ;fn ,slh laLFkk }kjk ,d ls vf/kd 'kkyk,a lapkfyr gSa rks muds vUnj ,d 'kkyk ls nwljh 'kkyk esa LFkkukUrj.k vkns'k djus ds iwoZ lfefr lEcfU/kr laHkkxh; f'k{kd v/kh{kd@ftyk f'k{kk vf/kdkjh dk iwoZ vuqeksnu ÁkIr djuk gksxkA** 22. The respondents/State clearly objected that the respondents No.3 & 4 did not obtain any approval or sanction from the Superintendent of Divisional Education/District Education Officer which is required as per circular, therefore, the transfer order and termination order both are not in accordance with law. Looking to the circular dated 12.07.1984, it is clear that the respondents No. 3 & 4 had not obtained any prior approval or sanction from the Superintendent of Divisional Education/District Education Officer, thus, the transfer order is against the government circular, therefore the transfer order as well as impugned order of termination both are against the circular of the government. 23. This Court while deciding the previous writ petition i.e. WPS No. 2292/2001 observed in para 5 as under: “5. This petition has become infructuous with the passage of time. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. 23. This Court while deciding the previous writ petition i.e. WPS No. 2292/2001 observed in para 5 as under: “5. This petition has become infructuous with the passage of time. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. However, respondents/authorities are at liberty to pass appropriate order for posting the petitioner in the public interest and administrative exigency, in accordance with law. No order as to costs.” 24. Therefore, it is clear from this order that this Court reserved liberty in favour of the respondents No. 3 & 4 that they may pass appropriate order in accordance with law, but the respondents No.3 & 4 not acted as per circular and passed transfer order (Annexure P/4) without any approval of Superintendent of Divisional Education/District Education Officer. 25. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 16.12.2008 (Annexure P/1) is set-aside with all consequential benefits. However, liberty is granted to the respondents No. 3 & 4 that, if they desire to act upon the transfer order (Annexure P/4), then they may transfer the petitioner in accordance with the circular of the government with prior approval of Superintendent of Divisional Education/ District Education Officer is required. 26. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.