SHEELA CHANDEL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ravi Malimath, J. 1. The petitioner is a Junior Assistant with the respondents, was transferred from the office of Fruit Technologist, Navbahar, Shimla, to the office of Subject Matter Specialist (Horticulture), Rohru vide Annexure P-5 dtd. 29/6/2020. Thereafter, a recommendation was made in terms of a letter dtd. 6/7/2020, vide Annexure P-6, to cancel the transfer orders. However, even as on date, the said letter has not been implemented and the transfer order has not been cancelled. Hence, the instant petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to issue a cancellation order as a consequence to Annexure P-6.

(2.) So far as this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, we do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. It is the discretion of the State to either accept the recommendation or not. Even though there was a recommendation to cancel the orders of transfer, however, the State thought it fit not to execute the same. Hence, there cannot be a mandamus to direct them to accept the recommendation vide Annexure P-6.

(3.) In terms of Annexure P-5, the petitioner has been transferred from Shimla to Rohru. The same is questioned on the ground that the petitioner is a spinster and is required to be protected. The material on record, as contended by the respondents, would indicate that she has been serving at Shimla since the year 2000. The relief sought for cannot be continued to the petitioner until she retires. Substantial leniency has been shown to the petitioner for keeping her at Shimla for the last 21 years. Hence, we do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed.