IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5927 of 2010 Judgment reserved on: 24.2.2011 Date of decision: 26.2.2011 P.R.Sharma …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another ....Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. for respondent No.1. Mr. Lalit K.Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. Kuldip Singh, Judge The petitioner has prayed for quashing of his transfer order dated 16.9.2010 from Government College,Kotshera, Shimla-4 to Government College, Bhoranj (Hamirpur) against vacant post. 2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner after serving at Government College, Solan was transferred to Government College, Chaura Maidan, Shimla on 18.9.2007. The petitioner had hardly completed his normal tenure when he was again transferred to Government College, Bhoranj vide order dated 16.9.2010. It has been alleged that on 7.9.2009 one Smt. Anuja 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 Thakur, who was appointed on contract basis was posted at Government College, Bhoranj. Smt. Anuja Thakur got herself adjusted at Government College, Sanjauli. 3. Smt. Anuja Thakur, has been appointed against vacant post, but post of Lecturer in Government College, Sanjauli was not vacant and it was got vacated only to adjust her by transferring Smt. Reena Tanwar to Government College, Bhoranj, who also not joined at Government College, Bhoranj and manipulated her transfer to Government College, Solan. 4. It has been alleged that till September, 2009 nobody had joined at Government College, Bhoranj and post remained vacant. It is only to adjust contract appointee that the Government has shifted the regular appointed teachers at new places of postings and the petitioner has been made a scape-goat for posting at Government College, Bhoranj. 5. The respondent No.2 was transferred from R.K.M.V., Shimla to Government College, Bhoranj, she did not join at Government College, Bhoranj and to accommodate her at Government College, Kotshera, the petitioner has been transferred to Government College, Bhoranj vide order dated 16.9.2010. It has been alleged that the transfer of petitioner to Government College, Bhoranj is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution in order to accommodate Smt. Anuja Thakur and Smt. Neeraj Kumari, who were posted initially at Government College, Bhoranj but they did not join there and to accommodate these contract appointees at the station of their choice, the regular teachers have been shifted. Smt. Reena Tanwar was earlier shifted to Government College, Bhoranj 3 but she did not join at Government College, Bhoranj and she was adjusted at Government College, Solan. Similarly, instead of Smt. Binta Thakur respondent No.2, the petitioner has been shifted to Government College, Bhoranj. The pleas of bias and manafides have been taken. The transfer of petitioner has been ordered on 16.9.2010 when there was ban on transfers. The transfer of petitioner to Government College, Bhoranj is arbitrary. There is no reason why respondent No.2 should be accommodated at Shimla despite the fact that she has completed more than seven years of stay at Shimla. The wife of petitioner is working in DAV School, New Shimla. The transfer order has been issued in mid academic session. The petitioner is a patient of hypertension. The petitioner has left less than four years of service. The petitioner has been shifted in order to accommodate respondent No.2. 6. The petition has been contested by respondent No.1 by filing reply. It has been stated that from July, 1996 till the date of filing of the reply the petitioner remained posted at Shimla except for the period June, 1999 to August, 2001 and from March 2005 to September, 2007. It is the prerogative of the Government to transfer an employee anywhere in the State keeping in view the administrative convenience. The petitioner has been transferred from Government College, Kotshera (Shimla) to Government College, Bhoranj after completion of his normal tenure at the present place of posting. The transfer is an incidence of service. The respondent No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the petition. The petitioner has filed the rejoinder to the reply of respondent No.1 and has reiterated his stand taken in the petition. 4 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that in order to accommodate the respondent No.2, the petitioner has been shifted to Government College, Bhoranj. The respondent No.2 has longer stay at Shimla. It has been submitted that petitioner has left less than four years of service, he is suffering from hypertension. The transfer of the petitioner to Govt. College, Bhoranj is arbitrary. The learned Additional Advocate General has supported the transfer order and has submitted that the petitioner has been transferred from Govt. College, Shimla to Govt. College, Bhoranj after completing normal tenure of service. The transfer is an incidence of service. The petitioner has no right to remain posted at the station of his choice. The allegations of bias and malafides are vague. In any case the authority acted ‘malafide’ and having ‘bias’ against the petitioner has not been identified nor impleaded as party in the petition. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has orally submitted that the husband of respondent No.2 is in Canada for the time being and in these circumstances, respondent No.2 has been accommodated at Shimla on her request to properly lookafter the education of her children. The petitioner has no right to remain posted at Shimla. It is the prerogative of the Government to transfer an employee at a particular place. 8. In Rajendra Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2009) 15 SCC 178, it has been held that a Government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice, nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the 5 administrative exigencies from one place to another. The transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary. No Government can function if the government servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. The Courts are always reluctant in interfering with the transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from malafides. In the present case, no violation of any statutory provision has been pointed out by the petitioner in transferring him from Shimla to Bhoranj. The petitioner except for using the expression ‘malafides’ and ‘bias’ for transferring him from Shimla to Bhoranj has not explained or elaborated them. The authority who acted malafide and in biased manner for transferring the petitioner from Shimla to Bhoranj has not been identified nor impleaded as a party. The plea of hypertension of petitioner to remain at Shimla is too weak to be allowed. It is common knowledge that many persons are suffering from hypertension. 9. The petitioner has taken the plea that his wife is a teacher in a school at Shimla is also no ground not to post the petitioner outside Shimla more particularly when it is not the case of the petitioner that his wife independently cannot manage the affairs of the family. The petitioner has already completed his normal tenure at Shimla. It is the stand of respondent No.1 that since the year 1996 except two spells, noticed above, the petitioner remained 6 posted at Shimla. The teachers are required also in rural areas to teach the students. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for quashing his transfer from Government College, Kotshera, Shimla-4 to Government College, Bhoranj. 10. The result of the above discussion, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 22.9.2010, extended from time to time, stands vacated and the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. ( Kuldip Singh ), February 26, 2011 Judge. (GR)