DEEPA SHARMA, J.

1. In the present Letter Patents Appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 07.05.2015 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 3061/2014, wherein her petition seeking quashing of transfer and relieving orders dated 28.04.2014 and 02.05.2014 respectively, was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as a clerk vide her appointment letter dated 11.02.1997. In the appointment letter, there was a transfer clause. The appointment letter is reproduced herein:-

“Guri Harkrishan Public School

Fateh Nagar, New Delhi-110018

13-52/96-97/Est.

11thFebruary, 1997

MEMORANDUM

The performance of Mrs. Varinder Kaur has been reviewed. She is hereby informed that she is placed on Probation as a Clerk in the salary scale of Rs. 975-25-1150/EB-30-1660 with a basic start of Rs. 975/- p.m. The appointment shall be governed by the following terms and conditions:

1. The appointment is on Probation for a period of one year with effect from 10th February, 1997.

2. The service conditions shall be governed by the school rules in force from time to time.

3. The staff is liable to be transferred to any branch run by Guru Harkrishan Public school Society. No transfer can be claimed as a matter of right.

4. On Probation a staff shall signed a service contract as required under Delhi Education Act and Rules.

If these terms and conditions are acceptable, you may give your acceptance immediately.

Sd/- Kawaljit Kaur

Principal

Ms. Varinder Kaur”

(emphasis ours)

3. Vide transfer order dated 28.04.2014 issued by respondent No. 2 i.e. Guru Harkrishan Public School (New Delhi) Society, she was transferred to their School at Tilak Nagar. Pursuant to the transfer order, the relieving order dated 02.05.2014 was passed by the respondent No. 1/Guru Harkrishan Public School.

4. In the Writ Petition No. 3061/2014, the appellant has challenged her transfer on the ground that she could not have been transferred from Fateh Nagar School to Tilak Nagar School for the reasons that every School is a separate legal entity and employees of one School cannot be transferred to another School and has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case titled as Satbir Singh vs. Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee & Anr. in W.P.(C) No. 8060/2007, decided on 01.05.2013. Another ground of challenge is that the common seniority list, prepared by the respondent no. 2, is wrongly prepared as certain cadre posts are wrongly clubbed together. She has also urged that her transfer is malafide occasioned on account of her filing complaints against the Chairman of the Fateh Nagar School who had been harassing her. The transfer being thus mala fide and hence vitiated.

5. All the contentions of the appellant were controverted by the respondents in their counter affidavit. It has been denied that transfer order was a mala fide order or that she has been harassed by the Chairman. It is submitted that a common seniority list was prepared in respect of all the Schools run by respondent No.2. It is further submitted that the appellant was transferred to another School which is at a distance of 2-3 kilometers from Fateh Nagar School pursuant to the transfer policy of the respondents.

6. It is further alleged that the appellant had indulged herself in acts of indiscipline and has threatened the Principal and the Chairman of respondent No. 1/School. It was in these circumstances that in order to avoid any confrontation, she was transferred to other school run by respondent No. 2. Reliance has been placed by the respondents on the case of Anand Swarup Mittal vs. Managing Committee of Ramja Sr. Secondary School No.4 & Ors. in W.P.(C) no. 2447/1998, decided on 24.08.2006.

7. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the case laws relied upon by them, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition vide impugned judgment.

8. The said impugned judgment has been challenged by the appellant before us on t