KAMLESH CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After serving for about three years at the station concerned, the writ petitioner, casts a challenge to the transfer order, borne in Annexure P-4. The afore tenure of three years hence completed, by the writ petitioner, at the station concerned, confers a valid right upon the employer of the writ petitioner, to make an order of transfer hence upon him.

(2.) Be that as it may, the writ petitioner has thrown a challenge to the impugned transfer order, on, the singular ground, of its not emanating from an approval being granted thereto, by the highest executive authority, of, the State of Himachal Pradesh. However, the vigor of the afore submission, becomes denuded, from scribed instructions, being placed on record by the learned Deputy Advocate General, wherein recitals occur qua the impugned transfer order, being made rather with the approval of the highest executive authority concerned.

(3.) Nonetheless the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has yet proceeded, to contend that since, he has been replaced, by a contractual employee, and, there being a ban against his being replaced by a contractual employee, hence the impugned transfer order, becoming ingrained with a vice of illegality. Even though, the afore argument, would become eroded of legal effect, if any, upon this Court, for the afore reasons validating the impugned transfer order, and, also its proceeding to direct, the respondents to ensure, the, replacement of the writ petitioner, rather with a regular employee.