The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of granting temporary injunctions, including the existence of a prima-facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, in the context of transfer orders and the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 104 of the Constitution of J&K.

1. In this petition, the petitioners have invoked the power of superintendence conferred on this Court by Section 104 of the Constitution of J&K for setting aside the order dated 09.10.2017 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Jammu (hereinafter called “the Appellate Court) whereby the order of City Judge, Jammu (hereinafter called “the Trial Court”) dated 08.04.2017 has been upheld.

2. The genesis of the controversy involved in this petition lies in three orders issued by petitioner No. 3 on 21.03.2017, whereby the respondents have been transferred to Vidya Peeth Public Higher Secondary School, Chowgan Slathian, Jammu, Maharaja Hari Singh DAV Public School, R.S Pura and Maharaja Hari Singh DAV Central Public School, Akhnoor respectively. The respondents have challenged the orders of their transfers by filing a civil suit before the trial Court seeking declaration that the orders of their transfers issued by the petitioner No. 3 are illegal, null and void and contrary to the provisions of law with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the petitioners from forcibly relieving the respondents or pressurizing them to join at their new places of postings.

3. As is apparent from the records, the suit was primarily based on the allegations of the respondents that their transfer was not a routine administrative affair but was actuated by mala fide considerations and, therefore, a substitute for punishment. The suit as well as the application filed by the respondents for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was contested by the petitioners. The stand taken by the petitioners before the trial Court was that transfer of the respondents was purely in the interest of administration and the same was in the exercise of legitimate power reserved by the petitioners. It was also pleaded by the petitioners that the transfer of the respondents had not violated any service rights of the respondents inasmuch as all service benefits viz pay and perks had been kept intact. The learned trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties came to the conclusion that impugned orders had not been issued in the interest of administration but had been passed keeping in view the alleged activities of the respondents which had been highlighted by the petitioners in their written statements. The trial Court, therefore, was prima-facie of the view that the orders of transfer challenged in the suit were punitive in nature and were, therefore, prohibited under Rule 10.1 (2) of the administrative manual of the DAV College Management Committee. The trial Court without going further into the other aspects like “Balance of convenience” and “Irreparable loss” kept all the three orders of transfer in abeyance till the culmination of the trial.

4. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure before the 1st Additional District Judge, Jammu. Appeal of the petitioners was accepted and the order of the trail Court dated 08.04.2017 was set aside by the 1st Additional District Judge, Jammu vide its order dated 17.05.2017. The respondents did not accept this order and assailed the same in Petition U/S 104 No. 66/2017. A Bench of this Court vide its order dated 22.05.2017, set aside the order impugned and remanded the matter to the Appellate Court i.e 1st Additional District Judge, Jammu to decide the appeal afresh. Before this Court, the respondents for the first time appear to have taken the plea of jurisdiction of petitioner No. 3 to pass the impugned transfer orders. In paragraph (8) of the judgment dated 22.05.2017, the Single Bench prima-facie observed that the orders of transfer were required to be passed by the Governing Body and the same were to be issued by the President/General Secretary of the College Management Committee. However, while parting with the judgment, the Court also made it clear that the observations made by i