JUDGMENT : RANJAN SHARMA, J. 1. The petitioner, a Principal (School cadre), has come up before this Court, by way of the instant petition, seeking the following prayers: “(i) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and the impugned Notification Annexure P-3 dated 30.9.2023 (antedated) may kindly be quashed and set aside by further directing the respondent to implement the notification dated 30.9.2023, Annexure P-2 qua petitioner by directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to join at the transferred place, i.e. GSSS, Kaphara, District Bilaspur, H.P. in the interest of law and justice.” 2. The only grievance of the petitioner is that as per Notification dated 30.9.2023 (Annexure P-2), upon approval of the competent authority, the petitioner was transferred from GSSS Kathiana (District Hamirpur) to GSSS Kapahra (District Bilaspur). 3. After issuance of the Notification of transfer dated 30.9.2023, Annexure P -2, from GSSS Kathiana to GSSS Kapahra, the Respondent No. 1 has issued another Notification on 30.9.2023, Annexure P-3, (herein after referred to as Impugned Order), whereby, the transfer of the petitioner ordered on 30.9.2023, Annexure P-2, was kept in abeyance. The petitioner has assailed the Notification dated 30.09.2023 (Annexure R-2) keeping the transfer orders (Annexure A-2) in abeyance in these proceedings. 4. Upon issuance of notice on 24.11.2023, this Court had directed the respondents to file reply or to furnish instructions. The matter was thereafter listed on 22.12.2023 directing the respondents to produce the records. The matter was again listed on 9.1.2024, on which date the records were produced but returned so as to ensure the production of records on 11.01.2024. 5. Today (on 11.01.2024), the records produced were perused. This is a case where, in view of the records, this Court has to interdict, in the Impugned Order dated 30.9.2023, Annexure P-3, whereby transfer orders of the petitioner dated 30.9.2023, Annexure P-2 were kept in abeyance. 6. In normal parlance, this Court would not have shown indulgence, whereby, upon the approval of the competent authority, the transfer order dated 30.9.2023, Annexure P-2 was issued, transferring the petitioner was transferred as Principal (School Cadre) from GSSS Kathiana (Hamirpur) to GSSS Kapahra (Bilaspur). Notably, in normal parlance, it is trite law that the power to issue an order, includes the power to cancel, modify, annul and also to keep an order in-abeyance. Notably, in normal parlance, it is trite law that the power to issue an order, includes the power to cancel, modify, annul and also to keep an order in-abeyance. However, this case, is an exception to the aforesaid principle, for the reason, that after the issuance of transfer orders on 30.9.2023 (Annexure P-2), the Principal Secretary, Education had issued the order of abeyance on 30.9.2023, Annexure P-3, by resorting to extraneous considerations. The records, reveal that, the order of abeyance has been issued just to satisfy the wishes and dictates of an elected representative, who is presently, a Chief Parliamentary Secretary (Education) in the Government. Other than this, there is nothing on record, to reveal any genuine, cogent and convincing material revealing public interest and administrative exigencies. Even the Administrative- Transferring Authority i.e. the Respondent No. 1 has abdicted his power and authority by succumbing to the wishes and dictates of the Chief Parliamentary Secretary, who has no authority to transgress the official business. Even the respondent No. 1, has neither resorted to an independent nor an impartial application of mind, as to whether any public interest or administrative exigencies warranted or necessitated that the transfer be kept in abeyance. 7. In the background of facts in Para 6 above, it is reiterated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court has time and again deprecated the transfer made on/at the behest of elected representatives or the persons who have no connection with the affairs of the State Government: “(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) No. 2177 of 2014, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. (ii) 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 farflung area of Kinnaur/Sirmour Districts on administrative grounds. 4. 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 farflung 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: “Shri 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 and in super-session 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. (a) 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. Therefore, sooner this type of interference is discouraged and stopped, the better for the administration and the people of the State. (b) 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) Public representatives have a right to make recommendations, but these can only be recommendations and cannot be taken to be the final word. (d) 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. (e) 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. (f) 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. (g) 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. (h) 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. 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.” (iii) In CWP 6359 of 2022, titled as Ashok Kumar vs. 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. (iv) In this context, notably, the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2542 of 2023, titled as Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 24.05.2023, has held as under: 2. Grievance of the petitioners 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. 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 petitioners, 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 H.P. 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. 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.” (v) The Division Bench, of this Court, in CWP No. 595 of 2023 titled as Mukesh Kumar vs. 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, dated 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 dated 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.” 8. Recently in CWP No. 8605 of 2023, titled as Anurag Chadha vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, this Court has held as under: “6(i) The first contention of Mr. Vikrant Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned transfer was made, on the basis of a DO Note [Demi Official Note] No 86761 dated 27.10.2023, which originated and was founded on a written recommendation based on a UO Note [Un-Official Note dated 15.09.2023], given by a person not connected with the affairs of Respondent State [i.e. by Private Secretary to Education Minister in this case, as per the records so produced before this Court on 24.11.2023]. Even, in the reply so filed by the official respondents these facts were not denied. Even, in the reply so filed by the official respondents these facts were not denied. In absence of any rebuttal, by the official-respondents, the factum that impugned transfer order dated 31st October, 2023 (Annexure P-1) was ordered on the basis of U.O./D.O note given by Private Secretary himself or for and at the behest of an elected representative [in this case, the Education Minister] stands established. 6(ii) In the background of the facts which are borne out from the records [as in Para 6(i) referred to above], it is manifest that once transfer was initiated by Private Secretary himself or for and on behalf of the elected representative i.e. the Education Minister just to fulfill the wishes and desires of an elected representative, without there being any genuine, cogent and convincing material revealing public interest and administrative exigencies, therefore, the impugned order so issued cannot be permitted to operate; moreso, when no such material was either annexed with the reply or pointed out from the records placed before this Court. In absence of any genuine, cogent and convincing material revealing public interest and administrative exigencies, the only inference is that transfer of the petitioner was ordered on the basis of written recommendations i.e. a UO/DO Note given by any such person, which was acted upon mechanically, by the Administrative and Transferring Authorities i.e. the Director of Elementary Education, in this case. 6(iii) A reference to the D.O. Note reveals that the Private Secretary to the Minister or the Minister [as the case may be] has even suggested the place of posting-station for the petitioner as well the private respondent herein, by usurping or donning the role of administrative-transferring authority, which is all the more dangerous, for the reason, that the place or station of posting is to be determined/decided by the administrative heads and not by elected representatives or by persons who act on their behalf [private secretary, as referred to above], as in this case. 6(iv) Even at administrative level, after the receipt of alleged approval dated 27.10.2023, there was neither any whisper revealing public interest or administrative exigencies nor do the records reveal any impartial and independent application of mind on these aspects. Non-adherence to these two pre-requisites in the decision making process smacks of perversity, arbitrariness in state action which certainly vitiates the impugned order. Non-adherence to these two pre-requisites in the decision making process smacks of perversity, arbitrariness in state action which certainly vitiates the impugned order. 6(v) This Court is of the considered view that elected representatives, [MLAs, MPs and Ministers] can make recommendation raising a grievance or a complaint against an employee in public interest or administrative exigencies. Even if, any such recommendation is made then, it is for the departmental authorities (Director of Elementary Education in the instant case), to impartially examine the same and if found to be true or justified based on administrative exigencies then, to act thereupon and to pass the necessary transfer orders. In the instant case, a perusal of the records manifested that even the departmental records do not reflect any impartial and independent of mind spelling out as to what was the material disclosing public interest and administrative exigencies. Such records do not contain even a whisper about the pre-requirements of public interest and administrative exigencies necessitating the transfer of the petitioner and private respondent herein. In absence of this, the only irrefutable conclusion is that the transfer was ordered at the mere asking of or just to give effect to the wishes and desires of Private Secretary or the elected representative [i.e. minister concerned] and in these circumstances, the decision making process and the resultant transfer order suffers from legal infirmities and is unsustainable in law. 6(vi) The facts will not stop here. In normal situation in case, there is any public interest or administrative exigencies, the transfer has to be initiated, on the basis of a proposal to be initiated from the bottom i.e. from Administrative-Transferring Authority (Director of Elementary Education in this case) to the top i.e. competent authority for approval so that the ban on transfers is relaxed before issuing orders. Any reverse action, so undertaken by way of a direction [alleged DO-UO Note] from Top to Bottom cannot ipso-facto be the basis for issuing the impugned orders, and in such an eventuality also, the Administrative-Transferring Authorities are expected to resort to an exercise based on an independent and impartial application of mind as to whether any recommendation so received reveals genuine, cogent and convincing material disclosing public interest and administrative exigencies. Absence of any such exercise or application of mind, by ipso facto, accepting the dictates as received from the Top, by succumbing to the directions of the superiors, amounts to abdication of its power-authority by Administrative-Transferring Authority [Director Of Elementary Education), by ignoring “relevant considerations” leads to perversity, unreasonableness and arbitrariness in state action, which cannot be permitted in any manner and therefore, the decision making process-action and the resultant transfer orders are not in spirit of law and is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7(iii) The contention of the Respondents-State Authorities in placing reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Roy, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation, Anjan Sanyal in Para 5 of the reply affidavit is not in dispute. At the same time, the aforesaid judgments will not come to the aid and rescue of the respondents, as the same are distinguishable on facts as well as in law. Once the transfer, in view of discussion made above, is a result of colorable exercise of power, by ignoring the relevant considerations, just to fulfill the wishes and desires of an elected representatives as in this case, which is clear from records perused by this Court, then certainly the impugned order is malafide, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. Once the transfer, in view of discussion made above, is a result of colorable exercise of power, by ignoring the relevant considerations, just to fulfill the wishes and desires of an elected representatives as in this case, which is clear from records perused by this Court, then certainly the impugned order is malafide, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. 7(iv) The plea of Mr Anup Rattan, Learned Advocate General, that, the required stay of three years at the present station i.e. GMS Diara is about to be completed in May, 2024 cannot come to the rescue of the State Authorities, for the reason that once very genesis-origin was founded on extraneous considerations [based on approval given by Private Secretary to Minister on 15.9.2023 as in UO Note], without there being any genuine, cogent and convincing material revealing public interest and administrative exigencies and this approval dated 15.9.2023 was acted upon by the Administrative- Transferring Authorities mechanically, without there being any whisper or discussion, by an impartial and independent application of mind to “relevant considerations” as to whether the alleged approval dated 15.9.2023, revealed genuine, cogent and convincing material revealing public interest and administrative exigencies and whether the transfer was necessitated or not then, in-absence of the fulfillment of these two pre-requirements, then the decision making process suffers from the vice of perversity, unreasonableness and arbitrariness and therefore, once the very foundation is bad in law [based on UO-D.O. Note, etc.] then all subsequent action shall ipso facto be bad on facts and in law. Mere likelihood of completion of tenure, will not give leverage or license to the State Authorities to resort to abuse its discretion, as in this case, which cannot be permitted in any manner.” 9. In view of the mandate of law and the discussion made herein above, the impugned order dated 30.9.2023, (Annexure P-3) keeping the earlier transfer orders dated 30.09.2023 (Annexure P-2), whereby the petitioner was transferred from GSSS Kathiana (Hamirpur) to GSSS Kapahra (Bilaspur) in abeyance, are quashed and set-aside. 10. In view of the mandate of law and the discussion made herein above, the impugned order dated 30.9.2023, (Annexure P-3) keeping the earlier transfer orders dated 30.09.2023 (Annexure P-2), whereby the petitioner was transferred from GSSS Kathiana (Hamirpur) to GSSS Kapahra (Bilaspur) in abeyance, are quashed and set-aside. 10. Consequent upon the quashing of the Notification of abeyance dated 30.09.2023 (Annexure P-2) in case, the respondents have relieved the petitioner from GSSS Kathiana (Hamirpur) or had posted another incumbent in place of petitioner at GSSS Kathiana (Hamirpur); then, the period from the date of relieving of the petitioner from GSSS Kathiana (Hamirpur), till rejoining at GSSS Kathiana (Hamirpur) or any other station to be allotted [in case present station is filled up] in view of the medical exigencies, be treated as “Compulsory Waiting Period” of the petitioner for all purposes, forthwith. 11. In the aforesaid terms, the instant writ petition, as well as, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.