IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3454 of 2010 Decided on 01.12.2010 Jagdish Kumar ..…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Respondents. _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General for respondents No.1 & 2. V.K.Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed on the following prayers:- “a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 28-05-2010 passed by Respondent No.2 (Annexure P-2). b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as bill clerk at IPH Division Ghumarwin.” 2. The respondents have taken the following stand vide para 5 of the preliminary submissions and para 11 on merits:- “5. That the plea of the petition that he has short stay at present place and he cannot be transferred. This plea is untenable as the Govt. reserve the right to transfer any employee at any 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. 2 time in the exigencies of public service and does not confer any enforceable right on the petitioner for his posting in particular place in any manner. The petitioner had been serving in his home sub- division for the last 22 years except for short period of two years prior to regularization he had also served in I&PH Sub-Division Ghumarwin. Hence he can be transferred. However, in case an employee is aggrieved by his transfer then the employee has the departmental remedy for redressal. There is no transfer order issued by the competent authority and hence there is no violation of any rules. 11. That the contents of this para are wrong hence denied. It is submitted that the petitioner can be posted at Sectional level as per duties of the Bill Clerk defined by the Principal Secretary (IPH) to the Govt. of H.P. vide letter dated 26.11.2005, copy of the extract is annexed as per Annexure R-IV. But the petitioner has not yet been transferred and petition is immature. The allegation of the petitioner that he is being posted at the instance of respondent No.3 is wrong and not based on facts as the department is not working under the control of respondent No.3. 3. On a bare perusal of the above reply, it is manifest that there is no order of transfer n existence. Consequently, the petition is disposed of as infructuous, without making any observation with regard to the contentions regarding mala fides etc. raised by the petitioner. 4. The petition as also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 1st December, 2010. Lsp*