JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. The petitioner, a Driver in the Respondent Corporation has filed the instant petition, seeking the following relief(s):- i) Issue a writ of Certiorari, Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, quashing the Office Order dated 27.10.2023 (Annexure P-5) qua the Petitioner (Ser.no.3), for all intents and purposes. ii) Issue a writ of Certiorari, Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit by directing the respondent No.1 and 2 to allow the petitioner to discharge his duties as Driver at HRTC unit Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh in Public Interest. iii) That the impugned order dated 27.10.2023 (Annexure P-5) are assailable on other grounds also which would be submitted at the time of hearing of this case.” 2. Precisely the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as a Driver, on contract basis, (non-transferrable) in Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Nahan Unit on 9.10.2017. His services were regularized in the same capacity and at the same place on 27.07.2021. While the petitioner was working in Nahan Unit, the respondent no 2 directed the petitioner to look after the work at Sarahan Bus stand w.e.f 31.10.2023. However, the Respondent no 1 issued an order dated 27.10.2023, Annexure P-5, transferring the petitioner from Nahan Unit to Reckong -Peo (District Kinnaur). 3. The petitioner has assailed the transfer orders dated 27.10.2023, Annexure P-5, on the ground that (i) transfer has been ordered merely to give effect to the written recommendation-D.O-UO Note No 70700, dated 15.09.2023 given by respondent No.4 (Ms. Dayal Pyari)-who is a social and political person; (ii) transfer ordered under the garb of public interest was issued only to give effect to the wishes of private respondent no 4 as reflected in the aforesaid recommendation-DO, amounts to passing the impugned order on extraneous considerations which is perverse, arbitrary and malafide; and (iii) transfer has adversely affected the petitioner resulting in hardship as he is suffering from ailment which is borne out from Annexure P-7; and (iv) transfer made during mid academic session of studies of children who are to appear in examinations is contrary to the mandate of law. In this background, Mr C N Singh, learned Counsel submits that the entire decision making process, including its genesis {DO given by respondent no 4), the ipso-facto approval thereof; and the inaction of the appointing-transferring authority in acceding to such a DO and approval without applying its mind to twin preconditions of public interest and administrative exigencies, as per him, vitiates the decision making process and the impugned orders also. 4. Upon issuance of notice on 6.11.2023, the respondents were directed to produce the records pertaining to the transfer of the petitioner. The matter was then listed on 7.11.2023 when the Respondent-State, who was in possession of the approval for transfer was also directed to produce the records. On 16.11.2023, though the records were not produced and therefore, the same were directed to be produced on 30.11.2023. Thereafter the matter was listed on various dates and in the background, the same is now taken up today. 5. Today, {on 10.1.2024}, the records pertaining to the transfer have been produced. The records reveal that the impugned orders dated 27.10.2023, Annexure P-5, transferring the petitioner from Nahan Unit to Reckong-Peo Unit, was issued on the basis of approval given by the Competent Authority (Hon’ble CM) dated 26.09.2023. In the above backdrop, and in order to examine the veracity of the approval dated 26.9.2023 granted by competent authority as well as impugned transfer orders so issued, this Court advanced a query to Mr. Anup Rattan Learned Advocate General, to point out and satisfy this Court as to what was the genesis or foundational basis or material substantiating public interest and administrative exigencies existing or available at the time of granting approval by the competent authority. In response to this, Mr. Anup Rattan, Learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. B C Verma, Learned State Counsel, submits that except for the written recommendation dated 15.9.2023 given by private Respondent No 4 (Ms. Dayal Pyari), no other material existed which revealed/substantiated public interest and administrative exigencies. However, Mr. Anup Rattan submits that once competent authority has granted the approval on 26.9.2023 and based on this, the impugned transfer orders were issued 27.10.2023, Annexure P-5, therefore, the transfer orders so issued are not liable to be interfered with. 6. Heard Mr. C.N. Singh assisted by Dr. Nidhi Singh, learned advocates for the petitioner and Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General assisted by Mr. 6. Heard Mr. C.N. Singh assisted by Dr. Nidhi Singh, learned advocates for the petitioner and Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General assisted by Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate General for newly impleaded Respondent No 1 A and Mr. Shubham Sood, Advocate, vice Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashist, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2-HRTC and have also gone through the case file, including the records so produced before this Court. 7. In normal parlance, as and when an employee is transferred from one station to another station, a presumption arises that the transfer has been ordered after satisfying the foundational requirements of public interest and administrative exigencies as an employee is liable to be transferred anywhere within his cadre. However, this mandate of law, is subject to exceptions and a writ Court can certainly interdict in a case, when, an employee attacks the decision making process leading to issuance of a transfer order which is an offshoot of a colorable exercise of power or when the action-order is perverse {by ignoring the relevant considerations of cogent, genuine and convincing material revealing public interest and administrative exigencies or by taking into account the extraneous considerations i.e. the action which is initiated on the basis of written recommendations considerations -DO-UO Notes given by a person or extra constitutional person not connected with the affairs of the State-Employer} or in case the transfer order is a result of colorable exercise of power or is malafide or is arbitrary, whereby administrative-transferring authority vested with the sole discretion to issue the transfer order abdicates its discretion by acceding to the wishes contained in the DO - UO Note or ipso facto and mechanically succumbs to the dictates contained in approval, which resorting to an independent and impartial application of mind in view of the cogent, genuine and convincing material substantiating public interest and administrative exigencies. Absence of all or any of these factors certainly vitiates the decision making process and the resultant order also {as in this case} or if an action-order of transfer is violative of the Statutory Rules or has been passed by an incompetent authority. 8. Absence of all or any of these factors certainly vitiates the decision making process and the resultant order also {as in this case} or if an action-order of transfer is violative of the Statutory Rules or has been passed by an incompetent authority. 8. In order to examine the decision making process and the impugned transfer order a reference to Comprehensive Guiding Principles 2013, notified by way of an Office Memorandum on 10th July 2013, {referred to as the transfer policy} after taking into account the mandate of Law passed by this Court in various cases, including Alka Chokar, Amin Chand, Sushma Sharma and N.S. Verma and based on the recommendations of the cabinet sub-committee so formed and the approval of these principles by the state cabinet, these principles were notified, so as to regulate the transfer of its officers and officials (employees) from time to time. As per Clause 1, this transfer policy shall apply to the employees of the Respondent Corporation also. Clause 2 and 10 provides that an employee can be transferred in public interest and administrative exigencies/administrative grounds. Clause 8 provides for the procedure to be followed during the ban period other than the period of general transfers, whereby, the transfer can be issued with prior approval of the Chief Minister and that too in circumstances indicated in paras (i) to (iv) and in case of exigencies and administrative grounds as well as priorities of the government in Para (v), the transfer, during the ban period, can be ordered by recording reasons. Clause 9 prescribes the procedure to the followed during the general transfers. Clause 23 provides that the Chief Minister can relax any provision with the prior permission of the Chief Minister on the departmental file through the Minister in charge of concerned department before a transfer is ordered. 9. In the instant case, a first look at the impugned transfer order dated 7.10.2023 (Annexure P-5), gives an impression that the transfer being an incident of service is valid. 9. In the instant case, a first look at the impugned transfer order dated 7.10.2023 (Annexure P-5), gives an impression that the transfer being an incident of service is valid. However, in view of the contentions so raised by Mr C N Singh Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the records so produced by the State Authorities reveals a very sorry state of affairs, compelling this Court, to lift the veil to find out the true intent and the foundational basis /material on which the approval was granted leading to issuance of impugned orders by the respondents. 10. Notably, as already mentioned in para 5 supra and the records so produced before this Court undoubtedly reveal that the Respondent No.4 (Ms. Dayal Pyari), who is allegedly a social-political worker, having no connection with the affairs of Respondent State or even the private Respondent gave a written recommendation on 15.09.2023 for transferring the petitioner from Nahan Unit to Reckong-peo i.e. a Tribal area in the remotest part of the state. Records reveal that it is not only the petitioner but four other incumbents who were recommended for transfer from their respective places of posting by the aforesaid private respondent no 4. The recommendation-DO-UO Note given by the respondent No 4 even suggested the place or station where the petitioner is to be transferred. Records reveal that it is not only the petitioner but four other incumbents who were recommended for transfer from their respective places of posting by the aforesaid private respondent no 4. The recommendation-DO-UO Note given by the respondent No 4 even suggested the place or station where the petitioner is to be transferred. This act of Respondent No.4 is not acceptable at all, for the reason, that firstly, the respondent no 4 being an extra constitutional person who was not at all connected with the affairs of either the Respondent-State or Respondent Corporation and therefore she had no authority to make any such recommendation; and secondly, the written recommendation so made by her did not contain any cogent, genuine and convincing material substantiating any public interest and administrative exigencies; and thirdly, the aforesaid private respondent no 4 had even suggested the place or the station where she desired the petitioner to be transferred /shifted; which matter falls exclusively within the domain of the administrative-transferring authority and fourthly, the recommendation-DO given by the respondent no 4 amounts to usurping the power, authority and discretion which was a matter which exclusively came within the domain of administration i.e. transferring-appointing authority {Respondent No 1} to examine when, how, in what manner and where the petitioner was to be transferred-posted by resorting to an independent and impartial application of mind after satisfying the twin requirements of public interest and administrative exigencies. In this background, this court is of the view that the aforesaid written recommendation or DO- UO given by the private respondent no 4, who is an extra-constitutional person, without having there being any foundational material revealing /substantiating the twin requirements of public interest and administrative exigencies was not required to be taken further on facts and in law then, reliance of such DO-UO for granting approval, itself smacks of taking into account “irrelevant considerations” and “by ignoring the relevant aspects” which renders the very foundation/basis for transfer as perverse, arbitrary vitiating the action at the very inception stage itself, on facts of the instant case. Ordered accordingly. 11. Ordered accordingly. 11. Now coming to the second aspect i.e. the veracity of the approval granted by the competent authority on 26.9.2023, it is least said the better for the reason, that the aforesaid authority has ipso-facto granted its approval to the alleged written recommendation-DO-UO Note dated 15.9.2023 given by the private respondent no 4 (Dyal Pyari) just to give effect to her wishes-desires-request but without making any effort to consider as to whether the said recommendation contained, fulfilled and satisfied the twin pre- conditions of public interest and administrative exigencies. In these circumstances, in the instant case, once the written recommendation DO-UO {dated 15.9.2023} given by private respondent no 4 lacks the required twin foundational material of public interest and administrative exigencies as discussed above then, the subsequent approval dated 26.9.2023 granted in a mechanical manner without prima facie satisfying itself to the availability or the fulfilment of the twin preconditions of public interest and administrative exigencies/administrative grounds, cannot be permitted to form the basis for approving the transfer of the petitioner. Moreover, even in case the transfer of an employee was necessitated in view of administrative grounds or priorities of the government during the ban period, then also as per Clause 23 of transfer policy, the administrative-appointing-transferring authority was required to initiate and put forth a proposal through the concerned minister on the departmental file to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, and only upon approval of proposal, the order was to be passed by the administrative-appointing transferring head. In this case, the prescribed mode was not followed. However, the reverse action so adopted and followed by way of a direction from the Top (HCM) to Bottom (administrative department), which was ipso facto acted upon just to give effect to the wishes/desires contained in the aforesaid DO-UO and the approval thereof, as discussed above. The non adherence to the procedure and material factors, leads to perversity in state action by ignoring relevant aspects and therefore the decision making process and the communication granting the approval stands vitiated, in facts of this case. 12. The non adherence to the procedure and material factors, leads to perversity in state action by ignoring relevant aspects and therefore the decision making process and the communication granting the approval stands vitiated, in facts of this case. 12. The third aspect to be examined is that on receipt of alleged approval dated 26.9.2023 from the competent authority and before issuing the impugned transfer orders whether the Administrative-Appointing-Transferring Authorities {Respondents 1 & 2 in this case} had resorted to an independent and impartial application of mind, by undertaking the required exercise as to whether any substantial material existed substantiating the availability/fulfilment of the twin preconditions of public interest and administrative exigencies or the impugned orders were issued mechanically without resorting to the required exercise/application of mind, by succumbing to the wishes/desires of such an extra constitutional person and the approval given thereto. Failure or inaction of the Administrative-Appointing-Transferring Authorities {Respondents 1 & 2, in not resorting to or in not undertaking the required exercise amounts to vitiating the state action. On a query by this Court learned vice Counsel for the Corporation Mr. Shubham Sood, on instructions and based on records does not dispute that the written recommendation given by the private respondent No. 4 on 15.09.2023 was approved by the competent authority on 26.9.2023 and the impugned transfer orders were issued by the Respondent no 1 on 27.10.2023 {Annexure P-5} but without there being any independent and impartial application of mind by the Administrative-Appointing-Transferring Authority to the relevant aspects, notably, as to whether the transfer was necessary, whether the twin pre-conditions of public interest and administrative exigencies existed and in case the transfer was necessary then to which place or station and reasons therefor. In the instant the circumstances enumerated above, manifests that the Respondent No 1- Administrative-Appointing - Transferring Authority- Managing Director of the Respondent-Corporation, has abdicated its power, authority and discretion by accepting whatever came as a dictate from the higher authorities. Once the very foundation leading to the approval is bad in law and the same was not justified on facts and even there was no genuine, cogent and convincing material revealing public interest and administrative exigencies, therefore, on this ground also the transfer cannot be permitted to operate. 13. Learned vice counsel appearing for the Respondent-Corporation Mr. Once the very foundation leading to the approval is bad in law and the same was not justified on facts and even there was no genuine, cogent and convincing material revealing public interest and administrative exigencies, therefore, on this ground also the transfer cannot be permitted to operate. 13. Learned vice counsel appearing for the Respondent-Corporation Mr. Shubham Sood submits that once the petitioner has completed the normal tenure at present station since 2017, therefore, the petitioner cannot impugn the transfer having been ordered on the basis of written recommendation-DO-UO. In considered view of this Court, the above plea raised by the learned counsel for the Corporation has no force for the reason, that once the very genis/foundation given by respondent No. 4, who has no role in the affairs of the Respondent-State and was given just to give effect to her wishes without there being any cogent, genuine and convincing material revealing public interest, and this DO-UO dated 15.9.2023 was ipso facto approved by the Competent Authority on 26.9.2023 then, this Court is of the considered view that once the DO-UO Note and approval did not have any foundational material/basis substantiating public intertest and administrative exigencies and these relevant considerations were ignored and extraneous considerations were taken into account then, the decision making process adds to perversity and arbitrariness in action, which cannot be permitted to operate in any manner. That being so, once the foundational action {DO and approval} has no legs to stand then, the decision making process and the impugned transfer order shall also stand vitiated. The contention of the Learned vice counsel for the Corporation that once the tenure of petitioner was complete then the DO- UO cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner is without merit for the reason that once the foundational action is bad in law being perverse, arbitrary and vitiated by legal malafide, then, the impugned transfer order cannot be permitted to operate in any manner. Permitting the respondents to continue with such decision making process will certainly amount to adding fuel to file and of course shall amount to giving leverage or premium to the respondents herein to indulge in perversity and arbitrariness in making transfer of employees on the basis of the DO-UO or written recommendations given by extra-constitutional person or a person} decision making process {private respondent no 4 in this case} who is not connected with the affairs of either the respondent State or Respondent Corporation and such a defense taken by Respondent Counsel cannot be permitted to operate. Accordingly, in the facts of instant case, the impugned order cannot be permitted to operate in any manner when; the origin and approval was vitiated as discussed above then, the decision making process and the impugned action and the impugned transfer order based thereon is also vitiated being perverse, arbitrary, malafide, a result of colorable exercise of power and the same cannot sustain, in facts of this case. Accordingly the impugned action and the transfer order dated 27.10.2023 (Annexure P-5) is set-aside. 14. 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. 14(i). 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 areaof Kinnaur/Sirmour Distt. 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 areaof 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. (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. (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. (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. The administration has to be stern and strict in matters of transfers. At the same time, it also has to be fair and just and should 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.” 14(ii). 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.” 14(ii). 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. 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 transfersfor 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. 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.” 14(iii). 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 judgement 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. 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.” 14(iv). 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. 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. 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. 15. 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.” 16. In addition to this, this Court in various judgment passed by the Division Benches including the Coordinate Benches of this Court has deprecated the practice of effecting transfer on the basis of extraneous considerations including the D.O-UO Note or such like recommendations given by extra-constitutional person or a person not connected with the affairs of either the Respondent Sate or the Respondent Corporation {as given by the Respondent no 4 in the instant case} and had interdicted the decision making process and the transfer orders by quashing the same, when, the aforesaid UO-DO did not contain /reveal any cogent, genuine and convincing material substantiating the twin requirement of public interest and administrative grounds/exigencies, therefore once the very genesis/origin was bad, then the approval so accorded by ignoring these aspects and the resultant transfer orders issued thereon; vitiates the decision making process and the impugned order. Ordered accordingly. 17. In view of the above discussion and in view of the mandate of the law as detailed hereinabove, the impugned order dated 27.10.2023 {Annexure P-5}, transferring the petitioner as Driver, from HRTC Unit Nahan (District Sirmour to HRTC Unit Reckong-Peo, District Kinnaur, {a tribal area} Himachal Pradesh are quashed and set aside. 18. Ordered accordingly. 17. In view of the above discussion and in view of the mandate of the law as detailed hereinabove, the impugned order dated 27.10.2023 {Annexure P-5}, transferring the petitioner as Driver, from HRTC Unit Nahan (District Sirmour to HRTC Unit Reckong-Peo, District Kinnaur, {a tribal area} Himachal Pradesh are quashed and set aside. 18. Consequent upon the quashing of the Impugned Order, as aforesaid, the respondents are at liberty to transfer the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, subject to the fulfillment of the twin pre-requirements of public interest and administrative exigencies/grounds, if they so desire, as discussed hereinabove. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms, so also the pending miscellaneous