IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 3203 of 2010 Date of decision: 09.08.2010 _________________________________________________________ Leela Devi … Petitioner Versus H.P. Board of School Education & another … Respondents. _________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate For respondent No.1. : Mr. G.D. Sharma, Advocate For the respondent No.2 : Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate. _________________________________________________________ Justice Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This petition is directed against the order dated 31.05.2010, whereby the petitioner who is working as Senior Assistant, in the Office of H.P. Board of School Education, Sale Book Depot, Solan, was transferred initially to the Head Office of the Board at Dharamshala and later on the same date was adjusted in the Liaison Office of the Board at Shimla. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is two fold. Firstly, that the transfer of the petitioner and respondent No.2 has not emanated out of administrative compulsion or public interest but has been ordered by the concerned Minister who has no control upon the Board, only with a view to adjust respondent No.2. It has been further alleged that in any Autonomous Body like the Board, the Minister should not exercise such influence. The second ground is that petitioner is due to retire in August, 2011 and she has been transferred at the fag end of her career. 3. As far as the first contention is concerned, normally this Court has always held that transfer should be made only for administrative reasons -2- and in public interest and not on the behest of Ministers. This is not to say that the Minister of the concerned department has no right to order the transfer of an employee for valid reasons. 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a number of cases has held that public representatives such as Members of the Legislative Assembly or the Ministers have a right to bring to the notice of administrative head that an employee should be transferred or there are complaints against the employee. However, the transfer is to be finally ordered by the Administrative head in public interest and not only mere asking of the Ministers or the M.L.As. Even though I have held so, in my opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The record shows that she remained posted at Solan since 1994 except for a brief period of 11 months, when she was posted at Shimla in the year, 2006. Even during this period of 11 months when she was posted at Shimla, she remained on leave for as many as 173 days. This shows that she hardly worked at Shimla. 5. The petitioner has contended that the politicians should not interfere in the working of the Autonomous Body, like the Board. The conduct of the petitioner herself disentitles her from raising such an objection. In the year, 2004 the petitioner was posted from Solan to Dharamshala. She represented against the said transfer to the than Chief Minister and at her behest, her transfer was cancelled by the Hon’ble Chief Minister. She was again posted to Dharamshala in the year, 2006. She again represented to the Hon’ble Chief Minister and on her behest her transfer to Dharamshala was cancelled and she was posted at Shimla, where she did not do any work as mentioned above. She thereafter managed her transfer back to Solan and has completed her normal tenure at Solan. -3- 6. Admittedly, respondent No.2 made a representation to the Hon’ble Minister of Education that since he had served the Board for 22 years at Dharamshala, he may be posted at Solan. This request was accepted and respondent No.2 was posted to Solan and the petitioner posted to Dharamshala. From the perusal of the record which has been made available to the Court, it is apparent that the petitioner either orally or in writing approached the Hon’ble Health Minister of the State, who represents Solan Constituency and at her request, her transfer to Dharamshala was cancelled and she has been adjusted at Shimla. A person like the petitioner who has been approaching the politicians time and again cannot be permitted to raise such an objection. 7. As far as the second contention is concerned, normally an employee should not be transferred at the fag end of his/ her career. However, as pointed out above, the petitioner remained at Solan for the last 16 years. She has been posted to Shimla which is only 42 Kms from Solan, therefore, no interference is called for in her transfer The record of the department has been returned. The petition is dismissed. No orders as to costs. (Deepak Gupta), J. August 9, 2010 Pritam