IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2598 of 2011. Judgment reserved on 19.5.2011 Date of decision: 18.6.2011. P.C. Dharoch … Petitioner. Versus State of HP& Anr. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. _______________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. For the respondent No.1: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. AG with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. AG. For the respondent No.2: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. Vide separate judgment of even date delivered in CWP No. 2844 of 2010 titled as Pratap Singh Chauhan Vs. State of HP & Ors., this Court has dealt with the question of exercise of writ jurisdiction in detail. It has been held as follows:- “We are governed by the Constitution of India. As per the constitutional scheme there are three pillars of democracy; the Legislature; the Judiciary and the Executive. Each has to work in its own sphere. This is a system of checks and balances where each can check the other, but it must be clearly understood that none of the three organs can encroach upon the jurisdiction of the other. The jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is indeed very wide. Wider the jurisdiction, more care should be taken to exercise it with greater discretion, so that questions are not raised about the functioning of the Judiciary. The Apex Court has in no uncertain terms laid down a note of caution that Court should not interfere in transfer matters except on very strong grounds. Having held so, this Court is also not oblivious to the factual position which exists on the spot and the situation is that day in and day out this Court is flooded with writ petitions in which employees challenge the order of their transfers on various grounds. On more than one 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. occasion this Court has found that there are notes sent by public representatives such as Members of the Legislative Assembly recommending the transfers. No doubt, public representatives have a right to make recommendations, but these can only be recommended and cannot be taken to be the final word.” In Sushila Sharma Vs. State of H.P. And others decided on 27.8.2007 we had clearly laid down that in future transfer orders should not be cancelled without making reference to the administrative department to put-forth its views. Relevant portion of the order reads as follows:- “ x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x We, however, direct that a copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of H.P., who shall ensure that a proper transfer policy is formulated to ensure that the transfers are made only on administrative grounds and not on any others grounds. In the policy to be framed, it shall bhe ensured that all the employees are treated fairly and equally and every employee during his tenure of service serves in tribal/hard areas and also in remote/rural areas. When transfers are made, the administrative department shall ensure that the employees who have already served in tribal/hard areas as well as remote/rural areas are not again sent to these areas and there is a continuous process of change whereby all the employees have a chance to serve in tribal/hard areas as well as remote/rural areas. In the policy so framed, it should also be ensured that the transfer orders are not cancelled without making reference to the administrative department to put-forth its views. In the policy, measures shall be provided to ensure that employees (obviously influential) who have managed to remain posted in the urban areas/cities are posted to rural/remote areas and hard/tribal areas in the transfer season when the transfers are made. The transfer policy should also ensure that people, who are posted in remote/rural areas, join their place of postings and do not manage to get their transfers cancelled on frivolous grounds as has happened in the present case. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x x x x ” Whereas, this Court normally would not interfere in transfer matters when it made on administrative grounds or public interest if it is proved that the transfer has been made at the behest of politicians and the administrative department has not even verified the facts, then this Court would be falling in its duty if it does not correct the situations. In the present case, the petitioner is working with the Irrigation and Public Health Department. He was promoted as Executive Engineer in the year 2003 and posted at Hamirpur. In the year 2005 he was posted at Dharamshala, but in the same year the petitioner was transferred to Dehra. In April, 2007 he was again transferred to Dharamshala. In March, 2008 he was transfered to Ghandran and then to Fatehpur. In November, 2010 he was transfered to Ghumarwin, whereas respondent No.2 was transferred to Fatehpur. Merely 5 months later on 26.4.2011 the petitioner was again sent to Fatehpur and the respondent No.2 was brought back to Ghumarwin. The stand of the State is that the petitioner has been transferred in the public interest. Respondent No.2 filed reply which shows that he remained posted at Ghumarwin from 1998 to 1999; at Solan from 1999 to 2002; at Arki from October, 2002 to November, 2004; at Shimla from November, 2004 to April, 2005; at Nahan from April, 2005 to June, 2008; at Sansarpur from June, 2008 to December, 2009; at Ghumarwin from December, 2009 to November, 2010; at Fatehpur from December, 2010 to April 26, 2011 when he was again posted at Ghumarwin. Record of the case was summoned and this record shows that the proposal to transfer the petitioner emanated from the office of the Hon'ble Minister of Irrigation and Public Health Department who is the administrative head of this department. A perusal of the file shows that on 25.11.2010 a conscious decision was taken by the Hon'ble Minister to transfer respondent No.2 to Fatehpur and the petitioner-Sh. P.S. Dharoch to Ghumarwin. This led to the transfer order being passed in November, 2010. It appears that the Hon'ble Chief Minister received a letter from various persons that the functioning of the petitioner-Sh. P.C. Dharoch who was posted at Ghumarwin is not proper. Another letter was also sent by Shri K.S. Thakur to the Hon'ble Chief Minister on the same grounds. In the note sent by the Hon'ble Chief Minister's Office it is specifically mentioned that the petitioner be transferred on account of the complaints (letter attached). The Hon'ble Chief Minister is the administrative head of the State and, therefore, he has a right to decide whether a complaint should be entertained or not. This was a complaint not made only by the party representatives, but there was a complaint by a large number of members of the area and by members of the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, the transfer of the petitioner cannot be said to be mala fide. In view of the above there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly rejected. No costs. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. 18th June, 2011 (Krn Guleria)