Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 200 (HP)

Abdul Hamid v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2023-04-04

SABINA, SATYEN VAIDYA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. Aggrieved against office order dated 07.09.2022, Annexure P-1, petitioner has approached this Court for grant of following substantive relief:- “i. That the Office Order dated 07.09.2022 at Annexure P-1 may very kindly be quashed and set-aside.” 2. The grievance of petitioner is that he has been ordered to be transferred without allowing him to complete normal tenure of three years. The transfer of petitioner has been ordered after a period of one year four months only. As per petitioner, previously also, he had been transferred after short spans and every time he had to knock the doors of this Court. It is further submitted that the transfer of the petitioner has been effected on the basis of a D.O. Note and there is neither any public interest nor administrative exigency in his transfer. The impugned action of the respondents has been alleged to be malafide. 3. On the other hand, respondents have contested the claim of petitioner by filing reply. It is submitted that petitioner has been transferred from Churah Forest Division to Tundah Wildlife Block, Khajjiar purely on administrative grounds. There is no malafide in transferring the petitioner. There is no D.O. Note, which has triggered the transfer order of the petitioner. No person has been ordered to be posted in Churah Forest Division vice the petitioner. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record available on the file carefully. 5. Undoubtedly, petitioner has been transferred from Churah Forest Division to Tundah Wildlife Block, Khajjiar after one year four months of the posting of petitioner at Churah Forest Division. 6. The issue that arises for consideration in peculiar facts of the case is whether petitioner can claim to remain posted at a particular place for complete tenure of three years as a matter of rule? In our considered view, the answer has to be returned in negative. 7. Transfer is an incidence of service and the employer has every right to transfer the employee keeping in view the exigencies of administration. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction does not interfere in the matters of transfer of government employees unless the administrative action is smeared with malafide. 8. 7. Transfer is an incidence of service and the employer has every right to transfer the employee keeping in view the exigencies of administration. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction does not interfere in the matters of transfer of government employees unless the administrative action is smeared with malafide. 8. Reverting to the facts of the case, except for bald assertion that petitioner has been transferred on the basis of D.O. Note, no tangible material has been placed on record to substantiate the allegation. Neither any detail of the D.O. Note has been made available on record nor the author of such D.O. Note has been impleaded as a party. Respondents have denied such fact. Further, it can be noticed that none has been ordred to be posted in place of petitioner in Churah Forest Division. Thus, it also cannot be said that petitioner has been transferred to accommodate some other person. 9. As regards, the allegations of malafide on part of respondents, it is not inferable from the material on record. This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution will not indulge in probing into the reasons behind administrative decision especially when there is no material to infer malafide or coloured exercise of power behind such decision. 10. In the instant case, petitioner has failed to place on record any material to prick the judicial conscience of this Court. 11. Even otherwise, there is no absolute rule that petitioner has to remain posted at a particular place for a specific tenure. The Comprehensive Guiding Principles-2013 for regulating the transfer of State Government employees adopted by the State government does not provide for any such mandate. It has only been specified that tenure/stay of an officer/official at one station shall be three years normally. It cannot be taken as an absolute mandate and the State Government always has a right to transfer its employees keeping in view the administrative exigency or public interest. 12. In view of above discussion, we don’t find any merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.