JUDGMENT Per Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Divisional Manager (Non-Technical) on 5.10.2006 and was posted at Tara Devi, Shimla. He was transferred from Tara Devi, Shimla to Solan on 22.1.2009. He was further transferred from Solan to Dharamshala Divisional Office on 31.5.2010 to work as Divisional Manager. He was transferred from Dharamshala to Hamirpur on 21.1.2011. He was further transferred from Hamirpur to Head Office Shimla on 13.12.2011. Petitioner has now been transferred from Shimla to Rampur Unit vide office order dated 19.6.2012. 2. There are four Divisional Managers available as per the cadre strength in the respondent-corporation and same number of posts of Deputy Divisional Managers. The Divisional Managers and Deputy Divisional Managers as per the submission of Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Senior Advocate are to be posted at divisional level. He has further argued that the Rampur Unit where the petitioner has been transferred from Head Office, only the post of Regional Manager is available. In other words, his submission is that petitioner has been transferred to a lower post. He has further argued that one Sh. Vijay Singh, who was promoted on 21.1.2011, has been permitted to work as Divisional Manager and Sh. Daljit Singh, who was promoted on temporary/ ad hoc basis on 15.9.2010, is also discharging the duties of Divisional Manager. 3. Mr. Adarsh Sharma has brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner when earlier was posted as Divisional Manager could not work efficiently. He has also argued that number of officers, namely, R.N. Negi, Kulbhushan Nayyar, Naveen Kaplas, Vijay Singh and Anil Sen etc., though holding the post of Deputy Divisional Managers, have worked as Regional Managers. He has further argued that the petitioner was put under suspension and criminal case has been registered against him for misappropriation. He has lastly contended that the petitioner has been sent to Rampur due to shortage of staff. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner was promoted on 5.10.2006 as Deputy Divisional Manager (Non-Technical). He has been permitted to discharge the duties of Divisional Manager till the date of his transfer to Rampur, i.e. 19.6.2012. Sh. Vijay Singh was promoted on 21.1.2011. However, he is working as Divisional Manager. Sh. 5. Petitioner was promoted on 5.10.2006 as Deputy Divisional Manager (Non-Technical). He has been permitted to discharge the duties of Divisional Manager till the date of his transfer to Rampur, i.e. 19.6.2012. Sh. Vijay Singh was promoted on 21.1.2011. However, he is working as Divisional Manager. Sh. Daljit Singh, who was promoted as Deputy Divisional Manager on 15.9.2010 on temporary/ ad hoc basis is also working as Divisional Manager. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Adarsh Sharma that the petitioner when earlier posted as Divisional Manager could not discharge his duties efficiently. There is neither any averment in the reply how the petitioner was not efficient nor any record has been produced to this effect. There is also no merit in the contention of Mr. Adarsh Sharma that the petitioner has been posted at Rampur due to shortage of staff. In case, there is shortage of staff, junior-most incumbent ought to have been sent to Rampur instead of petitioner. 6. As far as the suspension of petitioner is concerned, the same has been revoked by the competent authority and the petitioner was reinstated on 9.11.2007. So far as registration of criminal case against the petitioner is concerned, he stands acquitted by the competent court on 2.4.2011. Petitioner was also put under suspension on 2.9.2011; however, after receiving the explanation of the petitioner, the suspension has also been revoked on 24.9.2011. Petitioner being Deputy Divisional Manager should have been posted against the post commensurating to his status and not to the junior post of Regional Manager. A person who is holding higher post cannot be posted against lower post. 7. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa versus State of Tamil Nadu and another, (1974) 4 SCC 3 have held that so long as the transfer is made on account of the exigencies of administration and is not from a higher post to a lower post with discriminatory preference of a junior for the higher post, it would be valid. Their Lordships have held as under: “88. Secondly, with the vast multitudinous activities in which a modern State is engaged, there are bound to be some posts which require for adequate discharge of their functions, high degree of intellect and specialised experience. It is always a difficult problem for the Government to find suitable officers for such specialised posts. Their Lordships have held as under: “88. Secondly, with the vast multitudinous activities in which a modern State is engaged, there are bound to be some posts which require for adequate discharge of their functions, high degree of intellect and specialised experience. It is always a difficult problem for the Government to find suitable officers for such specialised posts. There are not ordinarily many officers who answer the requirements of such specialised posts and the choice with the Government is very limited and this choice becomes all the more difficult because some of these posts, though important and having onerous responsibilities, do not carry wide executive powers and officers may not, therefore, generally be willing to be transferred to those posts. The Government has in the circumstances to make the best possible choice it can, keeping in view the larger interests of the administration. When, in exercise of this ,choice, the Government transfers an officer from one post to another, the officer may feel unhappy because the new posts does not give him the same amplitude of powers which he had while holding the old post. But that does not make the transfer arbitrary. So long as the transfer is made on account of the exigencies of administration and is not from a higher post to a lower post with discriminatory preference, of a, junior for the higher post, it would be valid and not open to attack under Articles 14 and 16.” 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-8 dated 19.6.2012 qua the petitioner is quashed and set aside. However, respondent-corporation will be at liberty to post the petitioner on equal status post in public interest/administrative exigency. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.