IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3714 of 2010 a/w CWP No. 4260 of 2010. Judgment reserved on 05.01.2011. Date of decision: 0 7 .01.2011. CWP No. 3714 of 2010. Dr. Amrit Saini …Petitioner. Versus State of HP & Others. …Respondents. CWP No. 4260 of 2010. Dr. Amrit Saini …Petitioner. Versus State of HP & Others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate (in both cases.) For respondents: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. AG with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. AG. (in both cases.) Deepak Gupta, J. These two petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment, since common questions of law and fact are involved in the same. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Trained 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. Graduate Teacher (Medical) and posted at Government High School Dasehra, District Mandi in the year 2001. He served : 2 : there and was then transferred to Government Middle School, Saloh. Vide order dated 30th June, 2010 the Deputy Director Elementary Education, Una, District Una, deputed the petitioner to function at Government Senior Secondary School, Khad instead of Government Senior Secondary School, Saloh. This order reads as follows:- “OFFICE ORDER In compliance with the Worthy Deputy Commissioner Una's letter No. 6078-78/MA-MC-1 dated 28.06.2010 Sh. Amrit Lal Saini TGT (Medical) GMS Saloh U/S GSSS Saloh Distt. Una is hereby deputed in GSSS Khad against the vacant post of TGT (M) with immediate effect in the public interest till further orders. Sd/- Deputy Directory Elementary Education, Una, Distt. Una (H.P.)” 3. The petitioner challenged this order in CWP No. 4260 of 2010 mainly on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner had no authority or jurisdiction to direct the Deputy Director of Education to transfer the petitioner. In this petition interim relief was granted to the petitioner. Thereafter an order was passed on 14th July, 2010 transferring the petitioner from Government Senior Secondary School, Saloh (Una) to Government High School, Samra, (Chamba). This order is the subject matter of challenge in CWP No. 4260 of 2010. 4. The main ground of challenge is that this order has been passed by the respondents by taking a vindictive attitude. The petitioner urged that the respondents were angered by the petitioner approaching this Court and therefore, have passed the present order. : 3 : 5. According to the petitioner the genesis of both the orders is that under the “Sarv Siksha Abhiyan” an amount of Rs. 60,000/- was sanctioned for construction of kitchen in the Government Middle School, Saloh for preparing the midday meal. The petitioner alleges that the School Management Committee (SMC) was constituted and this Management Committee consisting of the parents of the students selected a site which was a small vacant piece of land between the primary school and middle school building. However, this fact was not liked by the Pardhan of the Gram Panchayat and some other persons and they wanted that the kitchen should be constructed at some other space and it is at their instance that the petitioner has been transferred. The petitioner has made specific allegations against the Panchayat Pardhan in this regard, but the Panchayat Pardhan was not made a party to this petition. Along with the rejoinder, the petitioner has also filed photographs to show that the site selected by him was better. 6. The stand of the State is that it was found on enquiry conducted, that the petitioner while officiating as Headmaster of Government Middle School, Saloh tried to form a new Student Management Committee (SMC) without following the proper procedure. It is further averred that not only the Panchayat Pardhan, but a large number of residents of the area were not happy with the site proposed by the petitioner, but the petitioner took an adamant attitude and functioned in a dictatorial manner. : 4 : Finally the matter was brought to the notice of the civil and police administration of the District, since all the villagers had got involved in the same, the Deputy Commissioner, Una intervened in the matter and got an enquiry conducted through the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) concerned. The SDM along with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Deputy Director of Elementary Education and Principal DIET conducted an enquiry. During the course of this enquiry they also recorded the statements of the villagers. The SDM found that large number of persons were raising their concerns about the undemocratic and fraudulent manner in which the petitioner had convened the meeting of the General House and replaced the members of the School Management Committee. It was decided to convene a special meeting under the supervision of Deputy Director Elementary Education to elect fresh Executive Body. This proposal was accepted by all concerned, including the residents of the Gram Panchayat, Mahila Mandal and the members of the Managing Committee itself. The Committee also found that the site proposed by the petitioner was not the best site. This site was only a small space between two blocks two buildings housing the primary and middle blocks of the school. This space according to the SDM would later be required to construct a staircase in case it was decided to raise another floor in the building. Therefore, another site was selected with the approval of all concerned. The SDM also found that all the local residents : 5 : including retired teachers and the members of the School Management Committee were agitated over the autocratic manner and high-headedness of the petitioner. The SDM was of the view that the situation may take an unsavory and ugly turn if this issue is not tackled immediately. 7. The Deputy Commissioner accepted the report of the SDM and in view of the finding of the SDM requested that the petitioner be posted to some other school and further requested that till he is transferred, he may be deputed to another school. This led to the passing of the two impugned orders. 8. The State in its reply has also relied upon earlier documents which show that even when the petitioner was posted in the School at Dasehra in Mandi, there was complaints that he had created indisplinary and unadminstrative problem and the enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and it was found that his relations with the teachers and headmaster were very strained and the petitioner was also guilty of tampering with the official record. Thereafter a penalty stopping one increment was imposed upon the petitioner. 9. The petitioner in his rejoinder has not denied these facts. Though the State in its reply had taken a specific plea that the petitioner had not called the meeting of the School Management Committee in a proper manner. The petitioner has not placed any document on record to show how the meeting of the Managing Committee were convened and what was the : 6 : agenda circulated in those meeting. The petitioner has placed a number of resolutions and other documents on record, but has conveniently not filed the most relevant documents. It cannot be believed that everybody, i.e. the other Members of the staff, the Deputy Commissioner are all acting at the behest of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner is causing problems in the area and therefore, there was no option for the State, but to transfer him out from the school in question. 10. Lastly it was contended by Mr. Bhushan that even if the petitioner had to be transferred out, he should not have been posted at the interior of the District Chamba. It is for the employer where a particular employee should be transferred and this Court cannot sit over the judgment of the State in this regard. No malafidies have been urged against the Deputy Director and against the persons who have recommended the transfer of the petitioner. The petitioner has been transferred to a place where there was a vacancy, therefore, I find no merit in these petitions which are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. January 7, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) (Krn Guleria) Judge.