Khajan Sing H vs Union
2022 Latest Caselaw 29 HP

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                      ON THE 3rd DAY OF JANUARY, 2022




                                                               .

                                 BEFORE
    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, JUDGE
    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, JUDGE





               CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8105 OF 2021
    Between





    KHAJAN SING HS/O SH. HIRA SINGH R/O
    VILLAGE KANDIYARI, PO BALI KOTI, TEHSIL
    SHILLAI, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, HIMACHAL
    PRADESH.

                                                           ....PETITIONER

    (BY MR. SURENDER SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

    AND



    1. STATE OF H.P. THROUGH THE SECRETARY
    (EDUCATION) TO THE GOVT. OF HP, SHIMLA.




    2. THE DIRECTOR HIGHER            EDUCATION,
    HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA.





                                                        ....RESPONDENTS

    (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE





    GENERAL WITH MR. VINOD THAKUR,
    ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)
    _________________________________________________
                This civil writ petition coming on for admission after

    notice this day, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, delivered

    the following:




                                              ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:32:32 :::CIS
                                             2




                                           ORDER

.

The instant petition has been filed for the grant of

following substantive relief: -

"(i) That the respondent No.2 may kindly b directed to consider and

decide the representations preferred by the petitioner, vide Annexure P-2, on 25.11.2021 and 7th December, 2021 for his transfer/adjustment either at Govt. Model Sr. Sec. School Kandiyari or at Govt. Model Sr. Sec. School Shillai, District Sirmour, sympathetically, within a period of one week."

2.

It would be noticed that the only ground on which the

petitioner seeking quashing of transfer order is founded on individual

hardship. However, it is more than settled that the Courts are

extremely slow to interfere directly in personal hardship cases. The

clear implication of the almost consistent directions given in the cases

are that the transferee could make a representation to the competent

authority.

3. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to a

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Roy Vs. Union

of India and another (1993) 1 SCC 148, wherein it was observed as

under:

"7.......The appellant has not made any representation about personal hardship to the department. As such, there was no occasion for the department to consider such representation. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed, but we make no order as to costs. It is, however, made clear that the appellant will be free to make representation to the concerned department about personal hardship, if any, being suffered by the appellant in view of the impugned order. It is reasonable expected that if such representation is made, the same should be considered by the department as expeditiously as praticable."

4. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case,

we deem it proper to disposed of this petition by directing the

.

respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner on

25.11.2021 in accordance with law, which shall positively be

considered by the respondents sympathetically within a period of

three weeks from today. It is made clear that this order shall not be

treated as precedent in future.

5. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so

also pending application(s), if any.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge

3rd January,2022 (Guleria)