IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. No. 10352 of 2011-F. Decided on : 26th December, 2011. _____________________________________________________ Rajeev Gupta, S/o Late P.N. Gupta, R/o Anand Niketan Sandal Estate Chakkar, Shimla-5. …Petitioner. -Versus- 1. State of Himachal Pradesh through Principal Secretary (Home) Govt. of Himachal Pradesh Pradesh, Shimla-2. 2. Director of Prosecution, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-09. 3. Girdhari Lal Verma, Stenographer, District Attorney Office, Shimla. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 and 2 : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For respondent No. 3 : None. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner has assailed the issuance of office order dated 25th November, 2011 (Annexure P-2), whereby he has been transferred from District Attorney Office, Shimla to District Attorney Office, Hamirpur vice respondent No. 3. 2. Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the office order dated 25th November, 2011 has not been passed by the competent authority. According to him, since the transfer has been effected during ban period, Hon’ble 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - the Chief Minister was the competent authority to issue transfer order. 3. It has come in the reply filed by respondent No. 2 that the transfer order dated 25th November, 2011 has been issued by the competent authority after taking into consideration 40% disability of respondent No. 3 and this being a couple case. Moreover, it is for the employer to see where an incumbent is to be posted in public interest and administrative exigency. Petitioner has already completed four years’ tenure in the office of District Attorney, Shimla. 4. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. Interim order dated 30th November, 2011 is vacated. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge December 26, 2011. (bhupender) - 3 - `