JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Being aggrieved by order of transfer, dated 30.9.2020, issued by respondent State transferring the petitioner from HP PWD Division Baijnath to QC & D, office of Chief Engineer, Mandi, the petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings praying therein for following reliefs: "A. That the writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing the order dated 30.09.2020 which has been issued in violation of Transfer Policy and law laid down by this Hon'ble High Court as well as apex court Transfer on E.O. note from the office of Hon'ble Chief Minister and without assigning any reason and to adjust respondent No. 3 on the basis of D.O. note from the local M.L.A especially when he has not competed his normal tenure, there is no other grounds for transferring the petitioner except just to adjust the respondent No.3. B. That the respondent may be directed to adhere the condition of transfer policy and the petitioner may be allowed to continue at the present place of posting till her completion of normal tenure. 2. Pleadings adduced on record by respective parties, clearly reveal that the petitioner after being appointed as a Junior Engineer, in the year 1989, remained posted mostly in Kangra District save except for three postings out of District Kangra at Kullu, Sirmaur and Dalhousie (Chamba). Barring for nine years, petitioner remained posted in and around his home Division Palampur. Petitioner, who had been working as Executive Engineer, HP PWD Baijnath from 23.2.2018 came to be transferred to the office of QC & D, Chief Engineer, Mandi and as such, approached this Court in the instant proceedings, primarily on two grounds, (1) he has not been allowed to complete his normal tenure of three years and (2) he has been transferred on the basis of DO Note procured by respondent No.3. 3. Reply filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 3. Reply filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 though clearly reveals that the petitioner came to be transferred on the basis of a DO Note issued by Shri Mulakh Raj, MLA, Baijnath Constituency, whereby, he, while recommending transfer of the petitioner from Baijnath requested for posting of respondent No.3 at Baijnath, but the reply filed on behalf of the respondents further reveals that the petitioner, prior to his transfer in question, was transferred to PWD Division Dalhousie on 5.2.2018, from HP PWD Division Jawali, where he was working with effect from 15.2.2016, but he, with the help and aid of two UO Notes, got himself adjusted at Baijnath on 23.2.2018. UO Notes, on the basis of which petitioner was adjusted as Executive Engineer Baijnath, stand annexed as Annexures R-I and R-II with the reply filed by the respondents. In the aforesaid background, learned Advocate General and counsel for respondent No.3 vehemently argued that no relief, if any, can be claimed by the petitioner on the ground that his transfer has been effected on the basis of DO Note issued by respondent No. 4. 4. This Court, with a view to ascertain factum with regard to DO and UO Notes issued in favour of petitioner and respondent No.3, also summoned record, perusal whereof clearly reveals that both, petitioner and respondent No.3, who are holding senior positions in the Public Works Department, had been repeatedly using their political connections to get themselves adjusted at the stations of their choice. This Court in Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others,2013 LatestHLJ 1051 (HP), had not only deprecated such practice but had quashed the transfer made on the basis of DO Note. 5. It is quite apparent from aforesaid exposition of law that request, if any made by public representative, per se, may not constitute an unauthorized or unwarranted interference or cause vitiation, provided that consequent steps are taken by administrative authority alone. Mere recommendation, if any, by public representative, is not sufficient to effect transfer, rather, there has to be application of mind by the authority while considering recommendations, if any, made by public representatives. Competent authority, while passing order on the basis of recommendations of a public representative, is definitely under obligation to see administrative exigency and public interest, if any. 6. Competent authority, while passing order on the basis of recommendations of a public representative, is definitely under obligation to see administrative exigency and public interest, if any. 6. In the case at hand, respondents in their reply have specifically admitted the factum with regard to issuance of DO Note by respondent No.4, recommending transfer of the petitioner and to adjust respondent No.3 in his place. Respondents in their reply, while justifying their action have stated that petitioner has completed almost three years i.e. 2 years and 8 months, but their reply is conspicuously silent about public interest or administrative exigency, if any, involved in the transfer of the petitioner. But, as has been taken note herein above, next question which needs to be decided by this Court is that, "whether the petitioner can be given benefit, if any, on account of his having been transferred on the basis of a DO Note, especially when it is apparent from record that prior to impugned transfer, he had been getting himself adjusted at stations of his choice, using political pressure". Petitioner, by way of rejoinder, has not been able to controvert allegation against him that he had got himself adjusted on the basis of UO Note. Apart from above, this Court finds that both, petitioner and respondent No.3, have been managing their postings by exerting political pressure. 7. This Court, faced with similar situation earlier, was compelled to conclude in CWP No. 511 of 2020, titled Sheela Suryavanshi Vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 12th August, 2020, that because of cartel created by few of the employees serving in the urban and semi-urban areas of Himachal Pradesh, influential employees manage to secure their postings in and around urban areas, leaving practically no room for the other employees. Relevant para of the judgment (supra) is reproduced herein below: "18. Off late, this Court has seen a surge in litigation relating to transfer. The State of Himachal unlike other States is not evenly or uniformly developed in matters of basic infrastructure like education, health services etc. It is for this reason and rightly so that every employee tries to make an endeavour to seek posting in the district or tehsil headquarters where the infrastructure is relatively well developed. This we observe on the basis of the statistics relating to Shimla alone, where floating population is equal to permanent population. It is for this reason and rightly so that every employee tries to make an endeavour to seek posting in the district or tehsil headquarters where the infrastructure is relatively well developed. This we observe on the basis of the statistics relating to Shimla alone, where floating population is equal to permanent population. Most of these migration in urban areas is directly related with education of children and thereafter it could be for other purposes like better health facilities etc. 19. We further notice that because of cartel created by few of the employees serving in the urban and semi urban areas of Himachal Pradesh, the influential employees manage to secure their postings in and around urban areas, leaving practically no room for the other employees. 20. The instant case is one such classical example, which reflects the modus operandi being resorted to by these teachers on completion of their tenure by seeking mutual transfer or creating artificial vacancies and thereafter getting each one adjusted in such vacancies. 21. It cannot be ignored that not only the State or Country but the whole world is in the grip of pandemic COVID-19, because of which students cannot be taught physically in the class rooms and are being taught through online classes. 22. In such circumstances, the respondents are not only duty bound but are mandated by law to ensure that no monopoly in the matters of transfers is created in favour of selected few but an endeavour has to be made to accommodate maximum number of teachers whose children are appearing for the board examination or examination for professional courses. These students can only study and attend classes on line if there is adequate and desired band-width. Even otherwise the facilities of tuition and coaching classes on online are mainly available in these places i.e. the district and tehsil headquarters, therefore, also the State is required to adopt a fair and transparent policy of transfer by calling for the details of all the teachers whose children are to appear in the Board exam or examination for professional courses like MBBS, AIEEE etc. This would not only bring about an end to the monopoly created in favour of few teachers but would also ensure benefit to the student community as a whole. 23. The Central Government, State Governments and likewise all public sector undertakings are expected to function like a 'model employer'. This would not only bring about an end to the monopoly created in favour of few teachers but would also ensure benefit to the student community as a whole. 23. The Central Government, State Governments and likewise all public sector undertakings are expected to function like a 'model employer'. A model employer is under an obligation to conduct itself with high probity and expected condour and the employer, who is duty bound to act as a model employer has obligation to treat its employees equally and in appropriate manner so that the employees are not condemned to feel totally subservient to the situation. A model employer should not exploit the employees and take advantage of their helpless and misery. 24. The action of the State must be reasonable, fair, just and transparent and not arbitrary, fanciful or unjust. The right of fair treatment is an essential ingredient of justice. Exercise of unbridled and uncanalised discretionary power impinges upon the right of the citizen; vesting of discretion is no wrong provided it is exercised purposively judiciously and without prejudice. Wider the discretion, the greater the chances of abuse. Absolute discretion is destructive of freedom, than of man's other inventions. Absolute discretion marks the beginning of the end of the liberty. 25. It was observed by Wades Administrative Laws, 5th Edition at page 347 that "The first requirement is the recognition that all powers have legal limits, the next requirement, no less vital, is that the Court should draw this limit in a way which strikes the most suitable balance between executive efficiency and legal protection of the citizen. Parliament consistently confers upon public authorities powers which on their face seem absolute and arbitrary. But arbitrary power and unfettered discretion are what the Courts refuse to countenance. They have woven a net-work of restrictive principles which require statutory powers to be reasonable and in good faith and in accordance with the spirit and letter of the empowering Act." At page 359, it was also observed that "Discretion of a statutory body is never unfettered. It is a discretion which is to be exercised according to law. That amounts at least to this that the statutory body must be guided by relevant consideration and not irrelevant. If its decision is influenced by extraneous consideration which ought not have taken into account, then the decision cannot stand. It is a discretion which is to be exercised according to law. That amounts at least to this that the statutory body must be guided by relevant consideration and not irrelevant. If its decision is influenced by extraneous consideration which ought not have taken into account, then the decision cannot stand. No matter that the statutory body may have acted in good faith, nevertheless, the decision will be set-aside." 26. Here, it shall be apposite to make a reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Public School vs. Huda, (1996) 5 SCC 510 , wherein it was observed that when public authority discharges its public duty, it has to be consistent with the public purpose and clear and unequivocal guidelines or rules are necessary and the same cannot be acted at the whim and fancy of the public authorities or under their garb or cloak for any extraneous consideration. 27. The concept of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness pervades the entire constitutional spectrum and is a golden thread which runs through the whole fabric of the Constitution. Thus, Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution accords right to an equality or an equal treatment consistent with principles of natural justice. Therefore, any law made or action taken by the employer, corporate statutory or instrumentality under Article 12 must act fairly and reasonably. Right to fair treatment is an essential inbuilt of natural justice. 28. As observed above, exercise of unbridled and uncanalised discretionary power impinges upon the right of the citizen; vesting of discretion is no wrong provided it is exercised purposively, judiciously and without prejudice. 29. The main concern of the Court in such matters is to ensure the Rule of law and to see that the executive acts fairly and gives a fair deal to its employees consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It also means that the State should not exploit its employees nor should it seek to take advantage of their helplessness and misery. As is often said, the State must be a 'model employer'." 8. In addition thereto, this Court in CWP No. 1924 of 2020, titled as John Gupta vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 22.07.2020, while dealing with the case of transfer based upon the recommendation made by the public representative, observed as under:- "14. As is often said, the State must be a 'model employer'." 8. In addition thereto, this Court in CWP No. 1924 of 2020, titled as John Gupta vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 22.07.2020, while dealing with the case of transfer based upon the recommendation made by the public representative, observed as under:- "14. Though a recommendation by a peoples representative requesting for a particular course of action in the realm of administrative functioning may not per se constitute an unauthorized or unwarranted interference or cause vitiation provided the consequential steps are taken by the authority of administration alone, the nature of action then to be drawn by the administrative department would be contingent on the attending facts. It is only when the contextual facts demonstrate servile subjugation of a administrative authority to the dictates of an outside entity in power by meekly abdicating his dominion, the resultant order or decision would be impeachable as antithetical to the foundational precepts of governmental functioning. The facts and circumstances of each case will therefore have to be evaluated." 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. 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. Respondents shall report compliance of this judgment by way of an affidavit. 11. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms alongwith all pending applications, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 12. List for compliance on 5th January, 2021.