SANJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Reply stands filed by respondents No.1 and 2. No reply is intended to be filed by respondents No.3 and 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no rejoinder is intended to be to the reply filed by respondents No.1 and 2.

(2.) Heard. By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed impugned transfer order dtd. 9/12/2025, in terms whereof, the petitioner has been transferred from SMS (Horticulture), Rampur (Rampur, Nankhari Blocks), District Shimla, to SMS (Horticulture) Dodra Kwar,District Shimla, in place of respondent Shri Kushal Singh.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned transfer order is per se bad, for the reason that the petitioner was transferred to Rampur from Rohru seven months prior to the issuance of the impugned transfer order. Learned Counsel further submitted that before his transfer to Rampur, the petitioner had served at Rohru for a normal tenure of three years and, therefore, he was expecting that he shall be allowed a reasonable tenure at Rampur, but by virtue of the impugned transfer order, he has again been disturbed just after seven months and that too, without any justifiable reason. Learned Counsel also argued that the impugned transfer order is nothing, but an act of coularable exercise of power, which is evident from the fact that the private respondents have been transferred without TTA, meaning thereby that they have been transferred on their request. He, thus, submitted that it is not a transfer which is either on account of any administrative exigency or in public interest, but is an arbitrary exercise of power and, accordingly, he prayed that the impugned transfer order be set aside. He further submitted that the impugned transfer otherwise is a result of D.O. Note.