IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.: 6308 of 2011. Reserved on: 14.09.2011. Decided on: 20.09.2011. _______________________________________________ Kiran Bala. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Respondent No.3 was transferred from Health Sub-Centre, Talara, District Kangra to Health Sub-Centre, Sathana, District Kangra vide Directorate office order of even number, dated 16.5.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner was 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - adjusted at Health Sub-Centre, Talara vide office order dated 2.6.2011. She joined her duties on 4.6.2011. Subsequently, vide office order dated 29.7.2011, the transfer order of respondent No.3, dated 16.5.2011 whereby she was transferred from Health Sub-Centre, Talara to Health Sub- Centre, Sathana was cancelled and the petitioner, who was transferred to Health Sub-Centre, Talara, was further transferred and posted at Health Sub-Centre, Harnota. 2. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that once the petitioner has been permitted to join her duties at Health Sub-Centre, Talara, she could not be further transferred to Sub-Centre, Harnota. He then argued that the petitioner has been transferred to Health Sub-Centre, Harnota to accommodate respondent No.3. 3. Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the distance between Health Sub- Centre, Talara and Health Sub-Centre, Harnota is 6 Kms., as per instructions imparted to him by the Director, Health Services on 29.8.2011. He then argued that the scope of judicial review in transfer matters is very limited. 4. Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, learned counsel representing respondent No.3 has argued that the petitioner has remained posted within the radius of 25 Kms. - 3 - 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 6. Petitioner was initially transferred from Health Sub-Centre, Ganoh to Health Sub-Centre, Sathana. She made a representation, pursuant to which she was transferred to Health Sub-Centre, Talara on 2.6.2011. The transfer of respondent No.3, who was under transfer from Health Sub- Centre, Talara to Sathana, was cancelled on 29.7.2011 and the petitioner was transferred and posted at Harnota. The distance between Health Sub-Centres, Talara and Harnota is only 6 Kms. It is for the employer to ensure where an incumbent is to be posted. This Court will interfere in the transfer matters only if the same is actuated with mala fides or there is arbitrariness and unreasonableness. In the instant case, the petitioner has been transferred only to a distance of 6 Kms. from Talara to Harnota. This Court will not interfere with the same. 7. Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that since the petitioner is a widow, she has also been adjusted at Harnota, though initially she was transferred from Ganoh to Sathana, which is at a distance of 100 Kms. from the permanent residence of the petitioner. 15. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this - 4 - petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. September 20, 2011. (sck).