DEV KUMARI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant being aggrieved by office order Annexure A-1 transferring her from Shimla to Rampur has filed this original application seeking the relief that the Respondents may be directed to cancel the impugned order and that the order dated 9.3.2005 may be quashed and set aside.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of this original application are that the applicant is working as Instructor, Cutting and Tailoring, Industrial Training Institute (W) Shimla and Respondent No. 4 was working as Instructor, Stenography (Hindi), but she was rendered surplus therefore, after training as Instructor, Cutting and Tailoring was ordered to join as such at Rampur. However, she preferred O.A. No. 2131/2005 which was ordered to be treated as a representation vide order Annexure R-3 dated 1.9.2005 passed by a Division Bench of this Tribunal. On consideration of such representation Respondent No. 2 adjusted Respondent No. 4 in Shimla and transferred the applicant to Rampur. Case of the applicant is that Respondent No. 4 was once transferred to Jubbal where she did not join and was again transferred to Rampur and she did not join there and being influential succeeded in securing the impugned order despite the fact that in the matter of stay both the applicant and Respondent No. 4 are similarly situate, but the applicant had three minor children and aged parents-in-law to lookafter and the transfer being in mid-session would result in suffering the children in their studies. Therefore, the transfer is highly arbitrary, void, illegal, capricious, unconstitutional and violative of the principle of natural justice.

(3.) The Respondents contested the claim of the applicant. Respondents No. 1 to 3 in their reply have averred that it is prerogative of the Government to transfer its employees from one place to another in the public interest and the applicant having completed her tenure at Shimla cannot as of right claim her posting at the same station whereas Respondent No. 4 had been adjusted in Shimla on sympathetic consideration that her retirement is to take place on 31.3.2007. It is further claimed that Respondent No. 4 has been adjusted at ITI Shimla on account of the orders passed by Respondent No. 2 in 'pursuance with' the directions/orders passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 2131/2005 filed by Respondent No. 4 and thus the claim has been denied.