Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sundernagar vs "13. Indeed on 11 August, 2021
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Satyen Vaidya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3168 OF 2021
Between:-
CHAMBI,
RESIDENT OF
ISHA CHAUHAN W/O SH. DALIP
SINGH,
r VPO
TEHSIL
SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P AT PRESENT
RESIDING IN PADDAL MOHALLA,
MANDI TOWN PADDAL,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
LECTURER ENGLISH IN GOVT.
SR. SEC. SCHOOL, KANAID,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
...PETITIONER
(BY SH. VINOD CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY EDUCATION TO THE
GOVT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA-2.
2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER
EDUCATION, HIMACHAL
PRADESH, SHIMLA-1.
3. POONAM, THAKUR, PARENTAGE
NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER, PRESENTLY
POSTED AS LECTURER ENGLISH
IN GOVT. SR. SEC. SCHOOL
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:51:37 :::CIS
2
DHANGIYARA, DISTRICT MANDI,
H.P.
...RESPONDENTS
.
(SH. ASHOK SHARMA,
ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH SH.
SHIV PAL MANHANS,
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERAL AND SH. BHUPINDER
THAKUR, DEPUTY ADVOCATE
GENERAL, FOR RESPONDENTS
NO. 1 AND 2.
SH. ONKAR JAIRATH,
ADVOCATE, FOR RESPONDENT
NO. 3.)
This Petition coming on for orders this day, the Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, passed the following:-
ORDER
The instant petition has been filed for the grant of
following substantive reliefs:-
"(i) That impugned office order 08.05.2021 whereby
the petitioner has been ordered to be transferred
from Govt. Sr. Sec. School Kanaid, District Mandi to
Govt. Sr. Sec. School Khangiyara, District Mandi, H.P.
may very kindly be quashed and set aside.
(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to
allow the petitioner to discharge her duties at the
present place of posting i.e. Govt. Sr. Sec. School
Kanaid, District Mandi, H.P. in the interest of justice.
2. One of the main thrust of the petitioner's challenging
the order of transfer is that the same has been effected on the
basis of D.O. note in order to favour the third respondent.
However, the record reveals otherwise. The petitioner was
transferred to Govt. Sr. Sec. School Kanaid from Govt. Sr. Sec.
School Nihari, Mandi on the basis of D.O. No. 12729, dated
.
27.02.2018.
3. Once the petitioner is the beneficiary of the D.O.
note herself, therefore, in the given circumstances, she is not
entitled to any relief in terms of the repeated judgments
rendered by this Court.
4.
Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to
the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 1387 of 2021,
titled as Parveen Kumar vs. State of H. P. and Ors., decided
on 31.03.202 1, wherein it was observed as under:-
"13. Indeed, transfer is an incidence of service and
government employees are supposed to be transferred
and posted anywhere in the State . The transfers of the
petitioner and that of respondent No. 4 are effected after
the approval of the competent authority. The petitioner,
earlier managed his posting at GSSS Nabahi, Mandi, and
now he has been transferred from Nabahi, after
completion of his normal tenure, so he has no right to say
that transfer of respondent No. 4, effected on the basis of
D.O. Note, is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. In fact,
transfer of the petitioner has no tinge of malafides,
neither without public interest nor vitiated, being against
the settled Transfer Policy, as transfer is an incidence of
service. Moreover in Sanjeev Sood vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh and others, CWP No. 4208 of 2020, decided on
22.12.2020, this Court has held as under:
"9. This Court in CWP No. 4063 of 2019, titled Smt.
Anita Rana and Anr vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and
others, decided on 31.12.2019, has specifically held
that a recipient /beneficiary of DO note cannot
.
approach this Court ventilating the grievance that he
/she has been transferred on the basis of DO Note. It
would be apposite to refer to the relevant observations
made by a Coordinate Bench in order dated
31.12.2019, which reads as under:-
"We have heard this matter for some time and
also perused the record produced by the office of
respondent No. 2. It is seen from the record that
on the D.O. Note, the transfer of petitioner No. 1
has been proposed to be cancelled. Meaning
thereby that she is also recipient of D.O. Note,
hence not justified in ventilating the grievances
that she has been transferred on the basis of D.O.
note. Therefore, the writ petition qua her
deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly
dismissed leaving it open to her to make a
representation either for cancellation of her
transfer or adjustment at some suitable place, if
so advised."
10. Since it is apparent that the petitioner, on earlier
occasions, got himself posted at stations of choice on the
basis of UO Notes, petition praying therein for quashment of
impugned order is not maintainable at all. However, having
taken note of the fact that both, petitioner and respondent
No.3, have been repeatedly exerting political pressure to get
themselves posted at stations of their choice, we dispose of
this petition by directing respondents to transfer both,
petitioner and respondent No.3, to some other places in the
State, especially where both of them have not served till
date, within two weeks."
5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit
in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also
.
pending application(s), if any. Parties are left to bear their own
costs.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
(Satyen Vaidya)
11th August, 2021 Judge
(sanjeev)
