JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. In terms of the previous order dated 04.01.2024, the records leading to the issuance of the transfer orders were sent and photocopy was retained by this Court for records. 2. Admittedly, the transfer of the petitioner, as an Agricultural Development Officer was issued on 21.11.2023, Annexure P-1, transferring him from Seed Store/Seed Grading Centre Bhangrotu, District Mandi to Development Block Shillai, District Sirmaur. 3. This Notification of transfer dated 21.11.2023, Annexure P-1, was assailed on three primary grounds, as mentioned in the orders dated 30.11.2023, which read as under:- CWP No. 9553 of 2023 & CMP No. 17707 of 2023 Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents. Let reply be filed within three weeks. 2. The petitioner is an Agriculture Development Officer and is posted at Seed Store/Seed Grading Centre Bhangrotu, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Now, as per Notification dated 21.11.2023 (Annexure P1), the petitioner has been transferred to Development Block Shillai, District Sirmour, H.P. 3. The petitioner has assailed the Notification of transfer dated 21.11.2023 (Annexure R-1) on the ground; (i) that the petitioner has completed only one year and two months of stay at the present station; and (ii) transfer has been ordered on the basis of DO No.86408 dated 27th October, 2023, in view of the averments in Para 7(D) of the writ petition and (iii) transfer order does not reveals any public interest or administrative exigencies. 4. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the prima facie view that interim protection need to be granted to the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, the operation of the Notification dated 21.11.2023 (Annexure P-1) transferring the petitioner, as Agriculture Development Officer from Seed Store/Seed Grading Centre Bhangrotu, District Mandi, (H.P.) to Development Block, Shillai District Sirmour shall remain stayed, qua the petitioner till the next date of hearing. Records be produced on 21st December, 2023. 4. Thereafter, the matter was again listed on 21.12.2023 whereby, this Court had considered the material aspect that once the petitioner had served the hard area from 2008 to 2018 (Jeori Development Block Rampur) then, the petitioner could not have been retransferred to Development Block Shillai, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, which is a difficult/remote area under the Norms and Principle governing transfer. 5. 5. On 04.01.2024, this Court perused the records which led to the issuance of the Notification of transfer dated 21.11.2023, Annexure P-1. The records reveal that the Notification of transfer was issued on the basis of approval given by the Competent Authority/Chief Minister on 27.10.2023. 6. Even a perusal of the records reveal that after receipt of approval dated 27.10.2023, the Administrative-Transferring Authorities in the departments concerned have ipso facto given effect to the said approval without resorting to an independent and impartial application of mind as to whether in these circumstances the transfer of the petitioner was necessary or not. 7. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the approval so given on 27.10.2023 and the Notification of transfer dated 21.11.2023, Annexure P-1, were based on extraneous considerations and the transfer was issued without their being any genuine, cogent and convincing material revealing public interest. 8. In order to ascertain these facts, the records so produced were perused by this court which reveals that a written recommendation was given by a Former Minister, who presently happens to be an office bearer also, recommending the transfer of several employees including that of the petitioner. 9. That being so, once the entire exercise, leading to the approval dated 27.10.2023 and the resultant Notification of transfer dated 21.11.2023 have originated from an extraneous consideration i.e. a written recommendation given by a Former Minister, as referred to above, which was ipso facto acted upon without there being any whisper revealing public interest or administrative exigencies, then, the Impugned Notification of transfer dated 21.11.2023, Annexure P-1, smacks of perversity, arbitrariness, unfairness, is based on colourable exercise of power and the same does not stands the test of judicial scrutiny. 10. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Division Benches and the Coordinate Benches of this Court have time and again deprecated the practice of issuing the transfer orders on the basis of written recommendations given by a person not connected with the affairs of the Respondent-State and also by the elected representatives, who have no role in transferring an employee by even recommending the posting and station where an employee is to be transferred or posted then, once the assigning of posting or station to an employee, lies within the domain of the Administrative-Transferring Authorities only and not by political incumbents or elected representatives then, in this background also, the impugned Notification of transfer dated 21.11.2023, Annexure P-1, cannot be sustained. 10(i). While dealing the issue of interference of elected representation [MLAs or Minister] or a person not connected with the affairs of respondent-State, in matters of transfer of an employee, a reference is made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Special Leave to Appeal (C) 2177 of 2014, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Tara Devi, decided on 19.01.2015, reads as under: - “Learned senior counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends, that the High Court erred in striking down Clause 17 of the transfer policy. Clause 17 of the transfer policy referred to in the impugned order of the High Court, is extracted hereunder:- “17. On request from public representatives at all levels, on administrative exigencies and in the public interest, transfer shall be considered by the competent authority.” Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further contends, that the aforesaid paragraph of the transfer policy was struck down in view of the observations recorded by the High court in CWP NO. 801 of 2013-A, titled Sanjay Kumar vs. State of H.P. and Others as well as in CWP No. 5351 of 2012, titled Amir Chand vs. State of H.P. Relevant extracts referred to by the High Court from Amir Chand's case is being reproduced hereunder: “4. Coming to the issue of political patronage. 801 of 2013-A, titled Sanjay Kumar vs. State of H.P. and Others as well as in CWP No. 5351 of 2012, titled Amir Chand vs. State of H.P. Relevant extracts referred to by the High Court from Amir Chand's case is being reproduced hereunder: “4. Coming to the issue of political patronage. On the basis of the judgments cited hereinabove, there can be no manner of doubt that the elected representatives do have a right to complain about the working of an official, but once such a complaint is made, then it must be sent to the head of the administrative department, who should verify the complaint and if the complaint is found to be true, then alone can the employee be transferred. 5. We are, however, of the view that the elected representative cannot have a right to claim that a particular employee should be posted at a particular station. The choice has to be made by the administrative head, i.e. the Executive and not by the legislators. Where an employee is to be posted must be decided by the administration. It is for the officers to show their independence by ensuring that they do not order transfers merely on the asking of an MLA or Minister. They can always send back a proposal showing why the same cannot be accepted. 6. We, therefore, direct that whenever any transfer is ordered not by the departments, but on the recommendations of a Minister or MLA, then before ordering the transfer, views of the administrative department must be ascertain. Only after ascertaining the views of the administrative department, the transfer may be ordered if approved by the administrative departments. 7. No transfer should be ordered at the behest of party workers or others who have no connection either with the legislature or the executive. These persons have no right to recommend that an employee should be posted at a particular case. In case they want to complain about the functioning of the employee then the complaint must be made to the Minister In charge and/or the Head of the Department. Only after the complaint is verified should action be taken. These persons have no right to recommend that an employee should be posted at a particular case. In case they want to complain about the functioning of the employee then the complaint must be made to the Minister In charge and/or the Head of the Department. Only after the complaint is verified should action be taken. We, however, reiterate that no transfer should be made at the behest of party workers.” It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, that a perusal of Clause 17 clearly reveals, that the norms depicted in Amir Chand's case (in paragraphs 4 to 7) were duly incorporated in Clause 17 of the transfer policy. We agree with the submission advanced by learned senior counsel for the petitioners, and therefore, hereby set aside the direction of the High Court in quashing Clause 17 of the transfer policy. It is, however, directed that Clause 17 of the transfer policy should for all intents and purposes be read as was expressed in paragraphs 4 to 7 of the judgment rendered in Amir Chand's case supra. 10 (ii) Reference is made to the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.985 of 2023, titled as Mukesh Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 13.06.2023 whereby, in similar situation, the transfer ordered on the basis of D.O. Note by an extra constitutional authority was set aside. The operative part of the judgment reads as under:- “2. A perusal of the record, which was produced pursuant to directions of this Court, goes to indicate that the transfer of the petitioner has been effected solely on the basis of DO Note, that too, issued by an extra constitutional authority. Therefore, in such circumstances, the impugned order of transfer cannot sustain, more particularly for the reasons, as already assigned by the Court in case titled Vipender Kalta vs. State of H.P. and others , 2021 (3) SLC 1462. 3. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the order of transfer dated 4.3.2023 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and set aside.” 10(iii). Notably, in CWP No.1748 of 2023 titled as Ravi Bhandari vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 08.05.2023, while dealing with the similar situation the Division Bench of this Court has deprecated the practice of making transfers on the recommendation of elected representative and the relevant part of the judgment reads as under:- “2. Notably, in CWP No.1748 of 2023 titled as Ravi Bhandari vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 08.05.2023, while dealing with the similar situation the Division Bench of this Court has deprecated the practice of making transfers on the recommendation of elected representative and the relevant part of the judgment reads as under:- “2. Though petitioner has completed his normal tenure at the present place of posting but grievance of petitioner is that he has been transferred on the basis of UO Note No.Sr.PS /Agri. & AH Min./2023-523 dated 10th March, 2023 initiated on the basis of recommendation of Local Public Representative who is also Cabinet Minister. 3. Record has been produced which indicates that Local MLA, who also happens to be a Minister, had given proposal of transfer of 12 employees/teachers including the petitioner that transfer of petitioner be approved to a far-flung area of Kinnaur/Sirmour Districts on administrative grounds. 4. In furtherance to aforesaid request, Hon’ble the Chief Minister has approved the transfer communicating the same to the Director of Education as under:- “Sh. Ravi Bhandari (Biology) may be transferred in condonation of short stay less than one/two years, from GSSS Jawali (Kangra) to far flung area of Kinnaur/Sirmour Distt. on administrative grounds, in relaxation of contract transfer Policy & in supersession of all Previous orders, in relaxation of ban on transfers. Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-1 is requested to take necessary action accordingly and report compliance.” 5. It is evident from the record that transfer has been ordered by the department without application of mind, but acting on the basis of recommendations made by a person, who has no role in functioning and business of Administrative Department. In the present case, the very basis for issuing impugned transfer is in conflict with various pronouncements of the Courts including the Supreme Court. Following principles propounded in above referred pronouncements may be relevant for the purpose of adjudication of present petition:- (a) It is for the employer to see where the Government servant is to be posted. However, there should be no arbitrariness in the action. The transfer cannot be used as an instrument to accommodate/adjust the persons without there being any administrative exigency. The underline principle for transfer is public interest or administrative exigency. However, there should be no arbitrariness in the action. The transfer cannot be used as an instrument to accommodate/adjust the persons without there being any administrative exigency. The underline principle for transfer is public interest or administrative exigency. (b) Interference from outsiders in day-to-day administration of the State is not warranted and in case such interference is allowed, it would only mean that the Government servants should run after those who are taking part in public life and in politics for getting better terms of service and a better place of posting and should do everything to please them and not to please the department by their ability, honesty and integrity and such interference is highly detrimental to the public interest as it would result in nepotism and corruption wherein only those who can wield influence and purse, can succeed. Therefore, sooner this type of interference is discouraged and stopped, the better for the administration and the people of the State. (c) An elected representative can only propose the transfer of an employee, that too for genuine and cogent reasons and not by usurping the authority of the administrative department, who alone is competent to issue the orders of transfer after due application of mind. (d) Public representatives have a right to make recommendations, but these can only be recommendations and cannot be taken to be the final word. (e) The transfer of the petitioner on the recommendation of the MLA in the given facts and circumstances by itself would not vitiate the transfer order. After all, it is the duty of the representatives of the people in the legislature to express the grievances of the people and if there is any complaint against an official, the State Government is certainly within its jurisdiction to transfer such an employee. There can be no hard and fast rule that every transfer at the instance of an MP or MLA would be vitiated. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of an individual case. There can be no hard and fast rule that every transfer at the instance of an MP or MLA would be vitiated. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of an individual case. (f) Whenever any transfer is ordered not by the departments but on the recommendations of a Minister or MLA, then before ordering the transfer, the views of the administrative department must be ascertained and only after ascertaining the views of the administrative department, the transfer may be ordered if approved by the administrative department, meaning thereby the views of the administrative department have essentially to be sought in the matters of transfer. What follows is that the views of the administrative department must reflect subjective satisfaction and conscious application of mind that the transfer is essential on account of administrative exigency and /or public interest or that the transfer of employee is necessary for the effective utilization of his /her services. (g) 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. (h) Any person has a right to make a complaint against an employee regarding his conduct to his superiors including the Hon’ble Chief Minister and even request for his transfer. It is, however, only for the competent authority i.e. administrative department to consider the request and take appropriate action in accordance with law. But when the administrative authorities do not perform their duties and resultantly fair play is denied by the administrative authorities, people turn up to the courts complaining of such blatant case of administrative excess compelling the courts to intervene in such matter. (i) Courts are clearly of the view that normally Courts would not like to interfere in transfer orders passed in administrative interests. (i) Courts are clearly of the view that normally Courts would not like to interfere in transfer orders passed in administrative interests. The administration has to be stern and strict in matters of transfers. At the same time, it also has to be fair and just andshould treat all the employees equally. It is only because the administration itself is lax and transfer orders are passed on extraneous considerations and the administration reverses its decisions day in and day out, that the courts are forced to intervene. 8. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, and pronouncements of this Court, present transfer initiated at the instance of Public Representative but with proposal indicating bias against the petitioner and approved by Hon’ble Chief Minister in such a manner that Administrative Department had left with no other alternative but to issue the order in consonance with approved UO note received from the Office of Hon’ble the Chief Minister, the present transfer deserves to be quashed and accordingly same is quashed. 9. Quashing of impugned transfer order does not mean that petitioner can never be transferred from the present place of posting. The respondents-authority by applying its independent mind, in administrative exigency, is at liberty to utilize the services of petitioner wherever so required in public interest but not for malafide consideration but definitely in terms of Transfer Policy of State.” 10(iv). In this context, notably, the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2542 of 2023, titled as Ramesh Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 24.05.2023, has held as under:- 2. Grievance of the petitioner(s) is that they have not been transferred in administrative exigency or public interest, but only on the basis of D.O. Note No. Secy/CM-22057/2022-VIP-A24735, dated 31.03.2023, generated and approved at the instance of an MLA, who has no role in business of the administration of the Department. 3. Record has been produced. Instructions have also been placed on record. Perusal of record indicates that after receiving approved Note from the Office of Hon’ble Chief Minister, it was further recorded in the noting sheet that above approved proposals were received from the MLA upon which Director of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, had observed that “Please Issue Orders”. It has further been recorded in the noting sheet that there was complete ban on the transfers by the Government. It has further been recorded in the noting sheet that there was complete ban on the transfers by the Government. However, as per verbal direction of the Director of Elementary Education, H.P., through P.A. Cell aforesaid transfer orders were issued in relaxation of ban on transfers for further implementation. Though in the instructions issued with respect to petitioner(s), details of posting of petitioners have been mentioned, but on record no such reason has been found to be assigned for proposal of transfer of the petitioners by the Department or competent authority, however, only consideration for issuing order is approval of transfer by the MLA as well as Hon’ble Chief Minister. There is no application of mind on the part of the Department, rather officers of the Department appear to be working for appeasing political persons, who have no role in the administration of the Department. Therefore, it does not appear that transfers have been ordered in administrative exigency or in public interest or for any other justifiable reason. 5. Following observation made by Coordinate Bench of this High Court in CWP No. 2621 of 2020 titled as Lekh Raj vs. State of HP reported in 2020 SCC Online HP 3429 reads as under:- “8……then such recommendations are thereafter got implemented through the Hon’ble Chief Minister, leaving virtually little or no scope for any discretion or taking any independent decision for the administrative department. 10……….Before the recommendations could reach the administrative department, the same were placed before the Hon’ble Chief Minister, who appended his note on 03.07.2020 “May be done as proposed”. It appears that all the proposed transfers were approved as it is, without even consulting the administrative authority. 10A. It is more than settled that an elected representative can only propose the transfer of an employee, that too for genuine and cogent reasons and not by usurping the authority of the administrative department, who alone is competent to issue the orders of transfer after due application of mind. Obviously, the administrative department in such circumstances, had no choice whatsoever, but to implement the recommendations made by the local MLA as approved aforesaid.” 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in the light of pronouncements of this Court, we have no other option but to quash the impugned transfer order dated 05.04.2023 and the same is quashed accordingly.” 10(v). In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in the light of pronouncements of this Court, we have no other option but to quash the impugned transfer order dated 05.04.2023 and the same is quashed accordingly.” 10(v). The Division Bench, of this Court, in CWP No. 595 of 2023 titled as Mukesh Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 15.06.2023, has reiterated the same legal position and the relevant paras of the judgment reads as under:- “5. The file produced by the State indicates that Hon’ble Education Minister of the Government of Himachal Pradesh had mooted the transfer of the petitioner as well as other persons vide U.O. Note No. 344, dt. 24.01.2023. 6. We fail to understand how the transfers, which are normally effected by the Director, Elementary Education, are being made at the instance of the Hon’ble Minister. This supports the plea of the petitioner that there is political influence behind his transfer. 7. Also having regard to the medical condition of the daughter of the petitioner, who is 91 % disabled, which fact is supported by Annexure P-2 (certificate), issued by Zonal Hospital, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., we are of the opinion that the impugned transfer order cannot sustain. 8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the transfer order dt. 04.02.2023 (Annexure P-1) qua the petitioner, is set aside and the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to continue at GCPS Hataun, Education Block Sadar-II, District Mandi, H.P.” 10(vi). Reference is also made to the judgment passed by this Court, in CWP No.8483 of 2023, titled as Savita versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr., decided on 4.11.2023, reads as under:- 6(i). Borne out from the mandate of Law, as evolved from time to time, the legal principles in normal parlance and the exceptions, permitting judicial intervention are to be kept in view. 6(ii). In normal parlance, an employee of the state government, who hold a State Cadre post, as in this case, is liable to be transferred from one place to another throughout the State. Such government servant, who holds a transferable post, has neither any fundamental right nor any vested right to remain posted at one place or to seek posting at stations of choice as of right. Who should be transferred where, when and in what manner is for the administration to decide. Such government servant, who holds a transferable post, has neither any fundamental right nor any vested right to remain posted at one place or to seek posting at stations of choice as of right. Who should be transferred where, when and in what manner is for the administration to decide. The power to transfer and the resultant order of transfer cannot be interfered with by the Courts if the power and the discretion to transfer an employee is exercised in a bonafide manner, honestly, reasonably, in public interest and exigences of service for achieving purity in day to day administration. Reference is made to the judgements passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974)4 SCC 3 ; B. Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka, (1986) 4 SCC 131 ; Union of India and others vs. H.N. Kirtania, (1989) 3 SCC 445 ; Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others vs. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659; Union of India and others vs. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 ; Chief General Manager (Telecom) N.E. Telecom Circle and another vs. Rajendra CH. Bhattacharjee and others, (1995) 2SCC 532; State of M.P. and another vs. S.S. Kourav and others, (1995) 3 SCC 270 ; Union of India and others vs. Ganesh Dass Singh, 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 214; Abani Kanta Ray vs. State of Orissa and others, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 169; National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Shri Bhagwan and Shiv Prakash, (2001) 8 SCC 574 ; Public Services Tribunal Bar Association vs. State of U.P. and another, (2003) 4 SCC 104 ; Union of India and others Vs. (3) SCC 214; Abani Kanta Ray vs. State of Orissa and others, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 169; National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Shri Bhagwan and Shiv Prakash, (2001) 8 SCC 574 ; Public Services Tribunal Bar Association vs. State of U.P. and another, (2003) 4 SCC 104 ; Union of India and others Vs. Janardhan Debanath and another, (2004) 4 SCC 245 ; State of U.P. vs. Siya Ram, (2004)7 SCC 405 ; State of U.P. and others vs. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402 ; Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Damodar Prasad Pandey and others, (2004) 12 SCC 299 ; Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India and others, (2009) 2 SCC 592 ; Union of India and others vs. Muralidhara Menon and another, (2009) 9 SCC 304 ; Rajendra Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2009) 15 SCC 178 ; and State of Haryana and others vs. Kashmir Singh and another, (2010) 13 SCC 306 and most recently in (2022) 12 SCC 01, titled as S K Naushad Rahman vs UOI the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that transfer is an incident of service and whether, and if so where, an employee should be posted are matters which are governed by the exigencies of service and an employee has no fundamental right or, for that matter, a vested right to claim a transfer or posting of their choice. 6(iii). The exception to the above general principles, is that the Courts can show indulgence, in case, an order of transfer of an employee, adversely affects his conditions of service like rank, status, seniority, promotion, pay or the like. In addition to this, the Courts can interdict, if the administration resorts to the transfer an employee, alien to the basic facets of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In addition to this, the Courts can interdict, if the administration resorts to the transfer an employee, alien to the basic facets of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Even in case of a transfer of an employee, the Courts cannot remain a mute spectator and permit anything to sustain and Courts shall certainly intradict when, an order of transfer of an employee is dehors the minimum facets of fairness, reasonableness, is for achieving an alien purpose or issued with an oblique motive or is a result of colorable exercise of power or is based on extraneous considerations or is issued by ignoring the relevant factors- considerations resulting in discriminatory application of the existing norms and principles governing transfers or is malafide either by abuse of power and improper exercise of discretion in the absence of any cogent material/factual background revealing public interest and administrative exigencies. A transfer is malafide when it is made not for professed purpose, such as in the normal course or in public or administrative interest or in the exigencies of service but the same is made for alien or other purpose, on a written recommendations (UO or DO Note) given by a person not connected with the affairs of the state government. Things will not stop here and even in case a transfer is made on the written recommendation (UO or DO Note) given by a Minister or a Legislator (MLA) without there being any cogent and convincing material/foundation revealing public interest and/or administrative exigencies and transfer is ordered on mere asking of these functionaries then such an action does not conforms to the principles of fairness, justness and does not satisfies the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Even in case an order of transfer appears to be ex-facie innocuous and a litigant-employee carves out a case, that the transfer does not conforms to the mandatory pre- requisites of a valid transfer, as mentioned hereinabove, then, the Court is competent to lift the veil and examine the real foundation of the transfer and the Courts should not hesitate, in nullifying an order so as ensure fairness, reasonableness, non-arbitrariness, equal and uniform application of norms principles governing transfers and to preventperversity, malafide, arbitrariness in State Action. 6(iv). 6(iv). As regards, the role of a Legislator (MLA) in giving recommendation for transfer and the validity of the aforesaid transfer order was the subject matter of Court, in catena of judgements, passed by this Court, in Ram Krishan vs. District Education Officer, reported in ILR HP 1979 HIM 481 : 1979 Shim LC 345; A.K. Vasudeva vs. State of H.P. and others, reported in ILR (Himachal Series) (1981) 10 HIM 359; 1982 Shim LC 104; CWP No 1105 of 2006, titled as Sushila Sharma vs. State of H.P. and others; Sant Ram Pant vs. State of H.P. and others, reported in 2009 (3) Shim. L.C. 206; CWP No 2844 of 2010, titled as Pratap Singh Chauhan vs. State of H.P. & others reported in 2010(3) Shim. LC 379, decided on 18.06.2011; CWP No. 3530 of 2011, titled as Babita Thakur vs. State of H.P. and others reported in 2011(2) Shim.LC 28; Amir Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in 2013 (2) HLR (DB) 648; Sanjay Kumar vs. State of H.P. and Ors, reported in Latest HLJ 2013 (HP) 1051; Raj Kumar vs. State of H.P. and Ors., reported in 2015 (1) Him. L.R. (DB) 567; CWP No.2621 of 2020, titled as Lekh Raj vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 17.08.2020 : 2020 SCC Online HP 3429; CWP No.511 of 2020, titled as Sheela Suryavanshi vs. State of H.P., decided on 26.8.2020; CWP No. 2677 of 2020, titled as Shugal Singh vs. State of H.P., decided on 24.9.2020; CWP No.2211 of 2020, titled as Sudhir Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 29.9.2020; CWP No.5294 of 2020, titled as Abdul Hamid vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 5.1.2021; CWP No.1387 of 2021, titled as Praveen Kumar vs. State of H.P and others, decided on 31.3.2021; CWP No.2862 of 2021, titled as Vipender Kalta vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 20.7.2021; CWP No 5721 of 2021, titled as Promila vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 8.10.2021 and by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No 2454 of 2023, titled as Sanjeev Kumar vs State of HP, decided on 25.5.2023, wherein, it has been held that a transfer is vitiated (i) In case the transfer is made sans public interest or administrative exigency ;(ii) transfer is made at the mere written recommendation (UO-DO Note) or the mere asking of an elected public representative (MLA or MP) but without there being any cogent/convincing material revealing public interest or administrative exigencies; (iii) transfer made on the mere asking- recommendation of an elected public representative (MLA or MP or Minister)by treating it to be the final word without there being an material or foundation revealing public interest and administrative exigencies ; (iv) transfer made on the basis of a recommendation given by an elected public representative (MLA or MP), which suggested a particular course of action or a particular station to which an employee should be transferred/sent smacks of oblique motives and alien purpose, leading to perversity and arbitrariness in state action because, it is for the administration i.e. Administrative- Transferring Authority to find out a place based on public interest and exigencies of service by an independent and impartial application of mind to the entirety of facts in each case; (v) the elected representatives can make recommendation but transfer orders can be issued not by usurping the discretion/power but only in case foundation of public interest and administrative exigencies based on cogent and convincing material exists needs to be examined by administration Administrative-Transferring Authority; (vi) the transfer made by administration-Administrative-Transferring Authority by acting or accepting the mere recommendation or an approval given by the Higher-Ups automatically, without independently and impartially examining such a recommendation/approval leads to abdication of authority and failure to exercise its power and discretion vested in Appointing-Transferring-Cadre Controlling Authority under the Statute i.e. the Recruitment and Promotion Rules issued under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India when, such power and discretion was meant to be exercised objectively for attaining public interest and for exigencies of service so as to ensure uniform application of norms for attaining purity in administration ; (vii) if in a case, a transfer is to be made, by relaxing any of the provision in existing norms governing transfers, {Clause 23}, then, the transfer proposal should be initiated on departmental file, from-by the Appointing Transferring-Cadre Controlling Authority under the Statute Recruitment and Promotion Rules, through the concerned Minister till its approved by the Competent Authority-Higher Ups and upon approval of relaxation then, only necessary transfer orders are to be issued and once the norms prescribe an act to be done in a particular manner then any infraction thereof leads to perversity and arbitrariness, which is malafide; (viii) if the transfer is a result of reverse action, based on a reference from the Higher Ups to the Appointing-Transferring-Cadre Controlling Authority by acting totally contrary to the mode-manner prescribed above, is highly deprecated and impermissible ; (ix) in case transfer is malafide, when, administrative action is contrary to the objects, requirements and conditions of a valid exercise of administrative power as per the Law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2020) 3 SCC 86 titled as Rajneesh Khajuria vs Wockhadrt Limited and Anr; and (x) any transfer ordered on a reference coming from Top to Bottom without there being a prior proposal revealing public interest and exigencies of service based on cogent material been held to be malafide, arbitrary and such practice has been deprecated whereas, the transfer should primarily be based on a proposal initiated from Bottom to Top revealing public interest and exigencies of service based on cogent material as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No 1730 of 2023, titled as Khube Ram vs State of HP, decided on 22.05.2023 ; (xi) the transfer so ordered defeats the legitimate expectation of an employee by ignoring the applicable-existing norms or policy governing transfers, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ms. X versus Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 14 SCC 187 . All or any of these principles are to be examined by the Courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 10(vii). In CWP 6359 of 2022, titled as Ashok Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 04.12.2023, this Court has deprecated the practice of resorting to the transfer of employees on the basis of extraneous considerations i.e. a D.O. Note, without there being any genuine, cogent and convincing material revealing pubic interest and administrative exigencies. In this context, the decision making process and resultant transfer orders have been held as perverse, arbitrary and set-aside, as under:- “5. On 30.11.2023, this Court directed the respondents to produce the records pertaining to the transfer of the petitioner as well as private respondent. Consequently, today learned State Counsel has produced the record. A perusal of the record reveals that the Private Secretary to a Minister, at the relevant time, had sent a communication on 20th July, 2022, that the Minister has approved the transfer / adjustment of the petitioner, namely Ashok Kumar, Panchayat Secretary, Kasaru, District Bilaspur to Gram Panchayat Dabla, District Bilaspur, (HP) in relaxation of ban on transfers. 8. In the backdrop of the communication dated 20.7.2022 and action taken on the file from 20.07.2022 till 30.7.2022 reveals a very sorry state of affairs. A perusal of the records reveal that the communication dated 20.7.2022, was sent by the concerned Minister to the administrative authorities, approving the transfer of the petitioner but without their being any foundation based on genuine, cogent and convincing material revealing public interest and administrative exigencies. In case, the transfer was recommended/approved by a Minister, then also, the same cannot be acted upon by the administrative authorities, in absence of any foundation based on genuine, cogent, convincing material reflecting public interest and administrative exigencies. Merely because a Minister or an elective representative desires that a transfer should be ordered then, the same cannot be ordered and implemented just to fulfill the wishes of a Minister. Merely because a Minister or an elective representative desires that a transfer should be ordered then, the same cannot be ordered and implemented just to fulfill the wishes of a Minister. In the instant case, the Minister had even approved the new place-station of posting of the petitioner, which amounts to usurping the discretion and authority vested in the administrative-transferring authority, who after independent and impartial application of mind, alone is competent to decide the place or station where an employee is to be posted, in public interest or administrative exigencies. Even after the receipt of the communication-approval for transfer dated 20.07.2022 the administrative- transferring authority while dealing with the matter from 22.7.2022 till 30.7.2022, has not resorted to any impartial and independent application of mind, as to whether the approval so received from the office of the Minister was based on cogent and convincing material revealing public interest and administrative exigencies, and, whether the same was required to be implemented or not. Records reveal that there was not even an iota of discussion or whisper on the departmental file, showing an independent and impartial application of mind, by the administrative authorities, reflecting public interest or administrative exigencies. It transpires that whatever the Minister desired, the same was taken as the gospel truth and taken to be the final words, leading to the issuance of the transfer orders of the petitioner on 18.08.2022, (Annexure P- 1). 10. In addition to the above discussion, one more aspect needs to be examined. Even a perusal of Para 1 of the preliminary submissions of the reply, the State Authorities have categorically admitted that the transfer can only be ordered in exigencies of service as well as in public interest. Despite this admission, there is not even a reflection of any public interest or administrative exigencies either in the approval given by the Minister concerned on 20.07.2022 or by the administrative-departmental authorities while dealing with the file from 22.07.2022 to 30.07.2022 as referred to above. Absence of genuine, cogent and convincing material, revealing public interest and administrative exigencies, leads to an inference that the impugned transfer, is based on colorable exercise of power, by ignoring the relevant considerations, is a result of improper exercise of discretion, rendering the impugned order arbitrary. Absence of genuine, cogent and convincing material, revealing public interest and administrative exigencies, leads to an inference that the impugned transfer, is based on colorable exercise of power, by ignoring the relevant considerations, is a result of improper exercise of discretion, rendering the impugned order arbitrary. Accordingly, the impugned order issued by the State Authorities-Respondents being perverse and based on colorable exercise of power does not qualify the test of reasonableness and non- arbitrariness in state action and, therefore, the same is interfered with. 11. In addition to this, during the ban or transfers, normally the transfer can be ordered by the State Authorities, on the basis of a proposal initiated by the departmental–administrative transferring authorities, on the departmental file till the approval was given by the competent authority (Chief Minister) as per the existing norms in the transfer policy. Any reverse action by the State Authorities - Respondents by approving the transfer, by transmitting the required action from top to bottom, cannot be made the basis for transfers, and moreover when there is neither any foundation nor any cogent and convincing material justifying public interest and administrative exigencies. 11. By applying the aforesaid principle of law, the Impugned Notification of transfer 21.11.2023, Annexure P-1, having been originated from a recommendation made by an incumbent-Former Minister, who was not connected with the affairs of the respondent-State and once this recommendation and the approval thereto, did not contain any genuine, cogent and convincing material revealing public interest and administrative exigencies, then, the issuance of the impugned orders by the Respondent No.2-Administrative-Transferring Authority by succumbing to the wishes and dictates of such wishes or desire, by abdicating its role, power and authority, vitiate the decision making process and therefore, the impugned transfer orders based on vitiated decision making process cannot be permitted to operate. Ordered accordingly. In view of the above discussion, the Impugned Notification of transfer dated 21.11.2023, Annexure P-1, transferring the petitioner, as Agricultural Development Officer from Seed Store/Seed Grading Centre Bhangrotu, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh to Development Block Shillai, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh is quashed and set aside. 12. Consequent upon passing of this order, quashing the Notification of transfer dated 21.11.2023, Annexure P-1, the respondents are free to pass appropriate orders, in case, they so desires, subject to the fulfillment of the pre conditions of public interest and administrative exigencies, in accordance with law. 12. Consequent upon passing of this order, quashing the Notification of transfer dated 21.11.2023, Annexure P-1, the respondents are free to pass appropriate orders, in case, they so desires, subject to the fulfillment of the pre conditions of public interest and administrative exigencies, in accordance with law. In aforesaid terms, the writ petition as well as the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.