BALDEV RAJ Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned transfer order dated 3.3.2014 comprised in Annexure P -1, whereby, he has been transferred from Barabhanchho Block, Trehta Range of Bharmour Forest Division to Runukothi Block. The challenge of the petitioner to the impugned transfer order is on the grounds (i) that he has been transferred after a short span of one year and nine months and (ii) the transfer of the petitioner is against the transfer policy since he has been transferred from one tribal area to another tribal area.

(2.) IN reply, the respondents have contended that Runukothi Block was lying vacant since 1.1.2013 owing to the transfer of the incumbent Sh. Lal Chand, Deputy Ranger to Trehta Range. The said incumbent was holding the additional charge of Runukothi Block and the public of the area were facing great difficulties in getting their works relating to the Forest Department accomplished, as, most of the time the aforesaid official was devoting his time to performing duty in Trehta Range. Hence, to meet the demand of the general public, the petitioner has been posted in Runukothi Block in the public interest. It is also contended that by way of this transfer, the petitioner has been benefited indirectly, as, he has come to be posted in the vicinity of his home station i.e. Bharmour, in as much, as, it is located only at a distance of 35 kilometers from Runukothi Block.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , we find nothing wrong with the transfer of the petitioner at this stage. Moreover, the petitioner has no indefeasible right to remain posted at a particular place. It is the prerogative of the employer to assign duties and place of work to its employees. Furthermore, the scope of judicial review in transfer matters is limited only where there are demonstrable malafides. However, no malafides have been averred nor substantiated against the respondents. Hence, in the absence of attribution of malafides against the respondents much less demonstrated, this Court, is, of the view that the limited ground of judicial review vested in this Court for interfering in transfer matters, remains unsubstantiated in its entirety. On the contrary, it appears that for the reasons aforesaid the petitioner has impliedly been benefited. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the transfer of the petitioner is politically motivated is concerned, the same is devoid of any force and rejected as the petitioner has not placed on record any material showing that his transfer was effected on any DO/UO note.