Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 484 (HP)

Bali Ram v. State of H. P.

2012-09-03

DEEPAK GUPTA, RAJIV SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Block Elementary Education Officer on 30.4.2012. He was posted in Education Block Kotkhai-II. He was relieved on 1.5.2012. He submitted his joining on 2.5.2012. However, joining of the petitioner was not accepted as per telephonic message received from the Director of Education on 1.5.2012 at 4.00 P.M. 2. Mr. P.P. Chauhan has vehemently argued that the action of respondents No.1 and 2 of not permitting his client to join new place of posting is illegal, arbitrary, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the order dated 30.4.2012 was modified on the basis of request of one Sh. Parma Nand. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings meticulously. 5. It is true that petitioner has been promoted and was posted in Education Block Kotkhai-II on 1.5.2012. However, one Sh. Parma Nand, who was working as Block Elementary Education Officer, Chohara, has made a request on 8.4.2012 to the competent authority for his transfer to Education Block Kotkhai-II due to illness of his wife. The same was accepted and the competent authority has approved the transfer of Sh. Parma Nand from Education Block, Chohara to Education Block Kotkhai-II against vacancy. The competent authority thereafter has modified the order dated 30.4.2012 on 2.5.2012. The representation of Sh. Parma Nand has been accepted since his wife is suffering from heart ailment and Kotkhai would be nearer to Shimla than Chohara. 6. It is averred in the petition that petitioner’s joining has not been accepted to accommodate Parma Nand. Petitioner has not arrayed Sh. Parma Nand as party-respondent. The petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. Order dated 2.5.2012 is administrative order and this Court will not sit in appeal over the same. 7. The transfer is an incident of service. It is for the employer where an employee has to be posted in public interest. The scope of judicial review in these matters is very limited. The Court can intervene only when the transfer has been made in infraction of any statutory rule or the same is actuated with mala fides. 8. 7. The transfer is an incident of service. It is for the employer where an employee has to be posted in public interest. The scope of judicial review in these matters is very limited. The Court can intervene only when the transfer has been made in infraction of any statutory rule or the same is actuated with mala fides. 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.