JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this Writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:­ “(a) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued thereby quashing and setting aside impugned transfer order dated 27.02.2024 (Annexure P­1), qua the petitioner. (b) That, a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondent No.1 to allow the petitioner to continue working as Secretary, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Una, Himachal Pradesh.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Secretary, APMC Bilaspur on the recommendation of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission on 22.02.2010. The post is a Class­I (Gazetted). He served at district Bilaspur for three years. He was transferred to district Una on 10.04.2013 and he served there till 03.05.2016. On 04.05.2016, he was transferred to district Mandi and served there till 19.04.2021. On 30.04.2021, the petitioner was transferred to Una and in terms of the impugned transfer order (Annexure P­1) dated 27.02.2024, the petitioner has been transferred to APMC, Paonta Sahib and the private respondent has been transferred as posted as Secretary, APMC Una, in place of the petitioner on secondment basis, ignoring the fact that neither the term of the petitioner at the said station is complete, nor respondent No.3 was eligible to hold the post of Secretary of an APMC, in terms of the Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Staff, Regulations, 2006, that have been framed for the employees of Himachal Pradesh State Agricultural Marketing Board under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh and Horticulture Produce Marketing Development and Regulations Act, 2005. It is also the case of the petitioner that the impugned transfer order has neither been passed on account of any administrate exigency nor on account of any pubic interest, but to adjust the private respondent on the basis of a D.O. Note, which has been obtained by the private respondent from a former M.L.A. Accordingly, the petitioner has prayed that the petition be allowed and the impugned transfer order be quashed and set aside. 3. Respondent No.3 despite service has chosen not to contest the petition. Accordingly, the said respondent is proceeded against ex parte. 4. Reply to the petition has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. 3. Respondent No.3 despite service has chosen not to contest the petition. Accordingly, the said respondent is proceeded against ex parte. 4. Reply to the petition has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. The stand of the respondent-Board is that it is incorrect that the private respondent is not eligible to hold the post of Secretary, APMC as she fulfills the qualifications and experience to hold the said post. It is also the stand of the Board that the private respondent has been placed against the post on secondment basis and this has been done in public interest and for larger administrative convenience. It is also the case of the Board that there is no indivisible right vested in the petitioner to remain posted at a station of his choice. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the pleadings and documents appended therewith. 6. In terms of the averments made in the petition which have been not been denied, the private respondent was initially appointed as an Agriculture Development Officer and she was transferred to Una on 28.08.2018. On promotion, she was transferred to Development Block, Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P. in the month of October, 2023 as a Subject Matter Specialist, but in terms of the impugned order she has been able to manage her transfer back to Una and that too against the post of Secretary, APMC, Una. These averments have not been contradicted by the respondents except the fact that the transfer of the private respondent is in public interest. 7. There are on record appended with the petition as Annexure P­2, the Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Staff of the respondent-Board (Annexure P­3), as amended from time to time. In terms of these Regulations, the post of Secretary is filled 80% by way of direct recruitment and 20% by way of promotion from amongst the feeder category of Assistant Secretaries. It is mentioned in the Regulations that failing this, the recruitment can be made on secondment basis amongst the category of District Agriculture Officer or equivalent of the department of Agriculture/ Horticulture preferably, but not the below the rank of ADO/HDO, having experience in Agriculture/Horticulture, Marketing and trained as a Secretary of the Market Committee. 8. It is mentioned in the Regulations that failing this, the recruitment can be made on secondment basis amongst the category of District Agriculture Officer or equivalent of the department of Agriculture/ Horticulture preferably, but not the below the rank of ADO/HDO, having experience in Agriculture/Horticulture, Marketing and trained as a Secretary of the Market Committee. 8. It is the specific allegation of the petitioner that the private respondent is not eligible to be appointed even on secondment basis as he is not trained as a Secretary of Market Committee. Whereas, this allegation of the petitioner has gone un­ rebutted on behalf of respondent No.3 as she has chosen not to contest the petition, respondents No.1 and 2 have also not placed any material on record to substantiate that the private respondent had undergone training as Secretary of the Market Committee. That being the case, it is not understood as to how an ineligible person could have been appointed against the post of Secretary and that too on secondment basis by displacing a regularly serving and qualified Secretary. 9. Here it is not a case where the private respondent was appointed against a vacant post on secondment basis. The private respondent has been appointed on secondment basis by transferring the incumbent who already was serving at the said station. Simple use of the word that, this was done on account of administrative exigency and public interest, does not suffices the purpose, because there is nothing placed on record by the respondents to substantiate as to how appointment of an ineligible person on secondment basis by displacing a regular incumbent is in public interest. This clearly and manifestly demonstrates that the impugned transfer order was passed just to adjust respondent No.3, who somehow manipulated her transfer back to District Una after her posting in District Simour after her promotion against the post of Subject Matter Specialist. 10. In this view of the matter, the petition succeeds. The impugned transfer order dated 27.02.2024 (Annexure P­1) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to continue to serve as Secretary, APMC, Una for a normal period. 11. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.