Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 6359 of 2011.-G Date of Decision: 9.11.2011. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vasudev Singh …… Petitioner Versus State of H.P & Ors.. ……. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant : Mr. Dilip Sharma,Advocate.. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M Negi, Deputy A.G for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Amup Rattan, Advocate for respondent No.4. Surinder Singh, J. : By means of present petition, petitioner seeks quashing of his transfer order Annexure P-1 dated 25.7.2011 and allow him to complete his normal tenure at the present place of posting. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. The petitioner was Head-Master in Government High SchoolRiali. Thereafter he was promoted as Principal and posted at Government Sr. Sec. School Hauridevi, District Kangra where he joined on 3.12.2009. After - 2 - completing one year 7 months at the said place as principal vide notification dated 25.7.2011 Annexure P-1 he was transferred from the aforesaid place to GSS Shilla against a vacant post, in mid academic session, in public interest. 4. The main grouse of the petitioner is that there was no public interest in transferring him before the completion of his normal tenure but it was actuated by malafide. It is alleged that Smt. Santosh Kumar wife of respondent No. 4 who was a graduate in math was appointed to carry out the teaching work in the said school on account of vacancy of TGT (Maths) vide PTA committee Resolution No. 4 dated 4.11.2004 to teach 7th and 8th standard students. She was being paid honorarium at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month. Whereas on 6.2.2007 Sh. Raj Kumar, TGT (N.M) joined in the school on regular basis but despite that Santosh Kumari was allowed to continue on the same terms and conditions. Later in November, 2009 Santosh Kumari passed BEd. 5. The petitioner joined as Principal in the said school, he noticed that there were sanctioned post of TGT (Arts) and Science, those posts were already filled up on regular basis. Thus, there was no necessity of Santosh - 3 - Kumari to continue as such, therefore, after convening a meeting of PTA committee, vide resolution No. 8 dated 28.1.2010, her services were terminated w.e.f 1.12.2009. 6. Smt. Santosh Kumar felt aggrieved by the said order and filed CWP No. 6434 of 2010 seeking direction to re-engage her by transferring Sh. Ashok Kumar, TGT (Arts) who had joined in the aforesaid school on regular basis. CWP aforesaid was disposed of by this Court with a direction to respondent No.2 to look into the matter, on appropriate representation, jointly filed by Santosh Kumari and Rajinder Singh aforesaid. Considering the respective contentions. Ashok Kumar was transferred by respondent No. 2 to GMS Bohal, thus relieved from GSSS Houri Devi on 25.11.2010. Thereafter Smt. Santosh Kumari appointed as TGT (Arts) for the first time by respondent No.3 pursuant to resolution No. 3 dated 22.11.2010 on an honorarium @ Rs. 1400/- per month fixed by School Management committee(SMC) by collecting funds from the students. 7. It is alleged that under the Right to Education Act there was no authority to collect the funds from the students for payment of salary of teachers. Hence, a resolution was passed by respondent No. 3, on 30.4.2011 to discontinue this practice and Smt. Santosh Kumari was - 4 - directed to continue w.e.f 1.5.2011 only if she volunteered to work without any remuneration but respondent No. 4 husband of Smt. Santosh Kumari exertied pressure on the petitioner to obtain the grant-in-aid to pay the salary from the collected funds, which was resisted and resulted the filing of false complaints, which could be the basis for his untimely transfer. 8. Respondent No. 3 almost admitted the averments made in the petition and respondents No. 1 and 2 vide their reply submitted that petitioner was in and around Kangra District since, 1982. According to respondent No. 4, he had donated his land to the school, as such Deputy Commissioner has promised the respondent to grant a job to one of his family member. Thus, his wife was engaged by the PTA under the policy framed by the State Government. He also averred in the reply that people were not happy with the work of the petitioner. 9. Vide order dated 28.9.2011 the learned Additional Advocate General was directed to file detailed reply highlighting the public interest behind transfer of the petitioner before completion of his normal tenure in Government Sr.Sec.School Hauri Devi. The order - 5 - was not been complied with despite the communication made by learned Addl. Advocate General to the concerned quarter. On consider ting the matter, I find that there is no cogent reason for respondents No. 1 and 2 to transfer the petitioner in the mid academic session before completing the normal tenure and no public interest is going to be served. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order Annexure P-1 is unsustainable, as such, it is quashed and set aside, the petitioner shall continue to work as Principal in GSS Hauri Devi, however, the respondents are at liberty to transfer the petitioner if there is a justifiable reason in public interest, in accordance with the policy and also keeping in view retirement of the petition which is due in October, 2013. 10. The petition with the above directions stand disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. November 9,2011 (Surinder Singh) (Priti) Judge.