SATYA PRAKASH AWASTHI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No.2 is not present despite service. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1.

(2.) PETITIONER has been in the service of respondent No.1 as Tehsildar for the last several years. He is due to retire on 31.7.2009, on attaining the age of superannuation. He was posted at Manali in April, 2007. He has yet not completed his normal tenure of three years at Manali. He has been transferred vide impugned order dated 24.2.2009, Annexure P -1, from Manali to Kangra as Tehsildar (Recovery). The transfer order which affects 35 Tehsildars reads that the transfers/ adjustments have been ordered in pursuance of the instructions issued by the Election Commission of India.

(3.) RESPONDENT No.1 has filed reply in which it is stated that there are instructions of the Election Commission that a person, connected with elections, directly or indirectly, should not be allowed to continue in the present district of posting, after announcement of general election to the House of People, if;