Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 997 (HP)

Ajay Kumari v. State of H. P

2014-07-30

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, Judge The writ petitioner was promoted, as, Block Development Officer, and, as such was ordered to be posted in that capacity at Basantpur, District Shimla, H.P, on 21.11.2012. Subsequently under notification of 29.3.2013, the petitioner was ordered to be transferred from Basantpur to Development Block, Shri Naina Devi Ji at Swarghat, District Bilaspur. Thereafter on 17.4.2014, the petitioner was again ordered to be transferred from Development Block Shri Naina Devi Ji at Swarghat to RDD Head Quarter, Shimla, and, the petitioner was ordered to be relieved on the very same day i.e. on 17.4.2014. On 21.4.2014 the petitioner joined RDD Head Quarter Shimla. However, on 4.6.2014 under the impugned transfer order, the petitioner has come to be transferred to Development Block, Kaza, District Lahual-Spiti. The writ petitioner has contended that the her transfer at the instance of respondent, under the impugned Annexure, is, politically motivated, as such, is not in public interest, and, necessitates its being quashed and set aside. The other reliefs prayed for by the writ petitioner are of respondents being directed to permit her to continue to work at RDD Head Quarter, Shimla besides she has prayed that record of the case be called for divulging the DO note issued by the Ex. Minister, which had prompted the respondents, to, render the impugned transfer order comprised, in, Annexure P-5. 2. The respondents vigoursly contested the writ petition and in the reply filed by the respondents, the respondents have projected that the transfer of the petitioner under the impugned Annexure is in public interest. It is also contended that the transfer of the petitioner from Development Block, Shri Naina Devi Ji at Swarghat, District Bilaspur to RDD Headquarter Shimla, comprised in Annexure P-3, was at the instance of the Chief Electoral Commissioner during the ongoing Lok Sabha Election, on, the basis of a complaint, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure R-II. It is denied that the transfer of the petitioner from RDD Head Quarter Shimla, is, ingrained with any political malafide, rather is in public interest and is to enable the petitioner to man the vacant post at Kaza and is necessitated by:- (a) There being no post of BDO at RDD, Head Quarter, Shimla; (b) The petitioner having not rendered service in a remote place; (c) There being no Block Development Officer to man a vacant post at Development Block Kaza; 3. Even though, the petitioner had averred in the writ petition that she in contravention of the transfer policy promulgated by the respondents assuring a government employee to complete his/her normal tenure of 3-5 years at the place of posting has come to be prematurely transferred. Nonetheless, the said facet of the aforesaid projection laid before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner for rendering the impugned Annexure P-5, to be imbued with the vice of illegality, stands to be discountenanced, in, the face of the uncontroverted reply furnished by the respondents to the writ petition, wherein, it has been disclosed as referred hereinabove, of, no post of Block Development Officer available at RDD Head Quarter, Shimla, as, also in the face of it emanating in the reply of the respondents that given the fact of the petitioner having not served at a remote place , besides, the post of Block Development Officer, Kaza being unmanned. Therefore, her transfer as Block Development Officer at Kaza, appears to be in public interest and for lack of substantiation of malafide as averred is construable tobe not a colorable transfer. 4. During the course of hearing of the writ petition the record of the case was produced before this Court. A perusal of the record of the case, omitted to divulge that the transfer of the petitioner under the impugned Annexure was politically motivated or was in sequel to a DO note. On the contrary, a perusal of the record divulges, the fact that during pendency of the writ petition, the former Minister and Deputy Chairman, H.P State Planning Board, had requested for cancellation of transfer of the petitioner as BDO, Kaza, and requested for her adjustment at Sarahan. Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmaur. The act of the petitioner, in, concerting to approach a former Minister and Deputy Chairman, HP State Planning Board, who was constrained to make a request to the above extent to the authorities concerned, necessitates being frowned upon as well as deprecated by this Court as given the pendency of the writ petition before this Court, she ought to have omitted to have approached any political functionary for redressal of her grievances. She having proceeded to do so, has portrayed an attempt to imbalance the equities which otherwise may have rested in her favour. She having proceeded to do so, has portrayed an attempt to imbalance the equities which otherwise may have rested in her favour. Moreover the petitioner has rather placed implicit reliance upon political system rather than the judicial system. Moreover when the above fact was omitted to be divulged by the counsel for the petitioner, during the course of hearing of the writ petition, rather was disinterred on a perusal of the record by this Court, as such, suppression of a material fact from the view of this Court, tantamounts to reprehensible conduct on the part of the petitioner. For reiteration, reposing of faith by the petitioner in the political functionaries which perse has been deprecated and, is, too liable for denunciation by this Court, constrains this Court not to grant the relief , as prayed for. In view of above, present petition is dismissed, as, also pending applications, if any.