RAJESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF H. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, upon, his promotion from the hitherto post, as, Assistant Director, become transferred, and, posted as Deputy Director (Animal Husbandry & Breading), to, District Kinnaur. The afore orders, of, posting, of, the petitioner, upon,his promotion, to the afore post, has been challenged, through the extant writ petition.

(2.) The challenge, to, the transfer order, is, grooved in the impugned transfer order, borne in Annexure P-1, infringing the conditions, embodied in the apposite instructions, of, 20.7.2020, hence, mandating against postings, and transfers being made within the phase(s) or period(s), as, embodied therein. Furthermore, it is also averred that the petitioner, is, beset with disturbing circumstances, inasmuch as, his becoming enjoined to lookafter his father, aged 87 years, and, also his posting at a remote/hard/difficult area, from his present place of posting, especially at the fag end, of, the petitioner's career, making breaches, upon, the relevant principles, borne in Annexure R-1, (a) principles whereof, regulate the transfer, of, State Government Employees, inasmuch as, it becoming embodied therein, vis-a-vis, (b) there being no embargo, upon, the government to dehors the public officer earlier serving in difficult/ hard/tribal area, to, on his promotion, hence, re-transfer, and, re-post him thereat, (c) yet with a rider when he has less than five years for superannuation. The afore apposite exceptions, vis-a-vis, the afore plenitude powers, of, transfer, conferred, upon, the respondents, rather arising hereat. Significantly, since the petitioner has averred, on affidavit, vis-a-vis, his falling within the zone, of, the afore exception, to the afore powers, vested in the government, inasmuch as, his being aged 55 years, reiteratedly, thereupon the apposite exemption, becoming applicable to him.

(3.) On the other hand, co-respondent No.3, upon his promotion has been directed to join at the extant station, of, the petitioner. The respondents, meted a detailed reply to the writ petition, and, contested the endeavour, made by respondent No.3, to his becoming posted at Kinnaur, in substitution, to, the posting thereto, of, the petitioner, (i) on the ground, vis-a-vis, respondent No.3, holding vested interests in commercial properties, owned by him thereat, inasmuch, as, in District Kinnaur. Furthermore, it is also contended in the reply, furnished, to, the writ petition, vis-a-vis, there being a contemplation in the relevant policy, against officers being posted, in their respective home districts, or, divisions. Consequently, it becomes incumbent, upon, this Court to test the validity, of, the afore propagation, made, by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, and, by the counsel for respondent No.3, along with, other contentions, made before this Court, in the reply furnished thereto, by the respondents. The fulcrum of the entire lis becomes rested, upon, Annexure R-1, annexure whereof, contemplates therewithin, the guidelines, regulating the transfer, of, State employees. A reading thereof unfolds, vis-a-vis, the Annexure R-1, becoming applicable, vis-a-vis, all officers/ officials, working in the Government of Himachal Pradesh, and, also it becoming applicable, to, officials/officers, of, the Boards/Corporations, and, Autonomous Bodies, under the State Government, (i) besides it is made applicable, to, the teachers, in, the Education Department. In trite, though there is a complete bar(s) against transfers, of, the officers/officials, as, enumerated therein, or, vis-a-vis, theirs being posted, at the places, mentioned therein, (ii) however, the public office of Assistant Director, or, Deputy Director, is not occurring therein. Consequently, it is unbefitting for the respondents, to contend in their reply, that it is not open to the petitioner, or, to respondent No.3, to contend qua theirs being continued to become posted, within their home districts, or, in proximity thereof, (iii) nor also it is open to the respondents to contend especially, vis-a-vis, respondent No. 3, qua given, his owning commercial properties, within District Kinnaur, (iv) thereupon, upon, his becoming posted thereat, rather would neutralise, his impartiality, and, transperancy, besides, public interest would become jeoparadised, as, no cogent material, in support thereof, becomes placed on record. Needless to say, that unless, the respondents had placed on record, cogent material, displaying, vis-a-vis, theirs meteing stringent adherence, to the afore, material whereof, is, amiss, (v) thereupon it is open to the respondents, to frustrate the impugned annexure, as, endeavoured by the writ petitioner, through the instant writ petition, nor it is open for the respondents, to despite respondent No.3, willing, to, become substituted at the place of posting, of, the writ petitioner, rather baulk his endeavour merely on the afore untenable grounds, as, thereupon this Court would wreak unreasonable discrimination, upon, the petitioner, and, also upon respondent No.3.