PAWNA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF H. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner in CWP No. 3530 of 2020, casts a challenge, upon, the impugned transfer order, made on 31.07.2020, and, borne in Annexure A-4, wherethrough, one Pawana Kumari, has been transferred, from, the Office of Assistant Project Office Integrated Development Project Unit, under, District Project Office IDP Hamirpur to Forest Beat Thetu, Block/Range Barsar, under Forest Division Hamirpur, and, in her substitution, the writ petitioner in CWP No. 2823 of 2020, one Tarsem Chand, is ordered to be posted thereat, thereupon, both the writ petitions are amenable, for, a common verdict being recorded thereons.

(2.) Prior to the extant petition, bearing CWP No. 3530 of 2020 becoming preferred before this Court, by Pawana Kumari, she had instituted CWP No. 2799 of 2020, wherethrough, she had strived for cancellation(s) of the afore transfer order, and, this Court had disposed off the afore writ petition, however, with a direction to the respondent concerned to make a decision, visa-vis, the validity of makings, of, the impugned therein transfer orders. However, as apparent, on, a reading of the office order made on 31.08.2020, rather the respondents proceeded to reject her claim, for, cancellation of the impugned transfer order, and, hence, Pawna Kumari becomes constrained, to, re-impugn the afore transfer order, through hers instituting CWP No. 3530, of, 2020, before this court.

(3.) The gravamen, of, the onslaught cast, by one Pawana Kumari, vis-a-vis, the impugned order, (a) is, embodied in the factum of articulations becoming borne in Annexure A-9, wherethrough, the Government of Himachal Pradesh accepted the terms, and, conditions, of, the financing of the relevant project, as, hence, imposed by the World Bank, (b) and, one of the accepted condition(s), appertaining to the tenure of the key staff, manning the apposite project, being unamenable for disruptions, and, for dislodging(s), unless, three years become completed, by, the apposite key staff. Consequently, the learned counsel appearing, for, petitioner one Pawana Kumari, on anvil of the afore condition, submits before this Court, that since the petitioner was a key staff, of, the relevant project, hence, the apposite disruption, as, made through the impugned transfer order, hence, lessened her tenure, of, three years, (c) whereupon, breach(es) become visited, upon, Annexure A-9, hence per se, thereupon, the impugned transfer order, smacks of vice of vindictiveness, and, also concomitantly becomes ingrained with the vice(s), of, discrimination, and, arbitrariness. However, the afore factum cannot become accepted by this Court, as, respondents No.1, to, 3, in their reply, meted to the writ petition, do on affidavit, make conspicuous unchallenged unfoldings, vis-a-vis, the writ petitioner, deployed at the relevant project, not falling within, the domain of key staff, vis-a-vis, the apposite staff, (d) and, also they further contend that the lessening, of, the tenure of posting thereat, of, the writ petitioner, one Pawana Kumari, through, the impugned order, also becoming sequelled, upon, the apposite approvals becoming accorded qua therewith, by the competent authority, (d) thereupon, the writ petitioner becomes forestalled, to cause any obstruction(s), in, the implementation of the impugned transfer order, and, also this Court becomes estopped to grant her the espoused relief. Furthermore, any countenancing(s), visa-vis, the afore purported breaches, rather would infract the trite inviolable tenets appertaining to service jurisprudence, inasmuch, as, transfer(s) being an inviolable, besides a judicially unreviewable condition of service, unless it/they become(s) cogently demonstrated, to emanate from the vice(s), of, discrimination. Consequently, since, the afore vices are palpably amiss in the hereat transfer order, thereupon, the contest, vis-avis, its validity as made by Pawana Kumari, is, unvindicable.