SANGEETA DEVI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Admit.

(2.) In view of the short controversy, the mater is finally heard and is being disposed of.

(3.) The applicant is aggrieved by the transfer order Annexure -A/1 whereby she has been transferred from Sub Centre Meerpur Kotla to Sub Centre Gohal allegedly within a short span of one years and five months, therefore, she has j prayed that said transfer order may be quashed an set aside and respondents be directed to allow the applicant to work at Sub Centre Meerpur Kotia. 4.The case of the applicant in that she was posted at Meerpur Kotla on her request conceded to by respondents as per the policy of the State Government and should have been allowed to continue at Meerpur Kotla for the normal period of three years but as is apparent from the transfer order she has been transferred after short stay just to accommodate respondent No.4 who was earlier transferred to Sub Centre Gehal to which the applicant had now been transferred. It is also claimed that there was complete ban on transfer, save and except the transfers approved by the Chief Minster, in case of filling of vacant posts or promotion or extreme administrative reason whereas for passing the impugned order none of these conditions existed.