Civil Writ Petition No.11919 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11919 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision 20.05.2009 Jagjit Singh ......Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr.Sanjay Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.A.K.Gupta, Addl.A.G., Haryana, for the respondent-State. Mr.R.S.Rana, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ***** AJAY TEWARI, J(ORAL): This writ petition has been filed on the ground that the petitioner has been repeatedly transferred, thereby impugning the transfer order dated 20.06.2008, whereby the petitioner was transferred from District Election Office, Ambala to District Election Office, Panipat. The facts which have emerged are that the petitioner was originally posted at District Election Office, Ambala and was transferred to District Election Office, Mewat at Nuh on 14.06.2005. On his own request, the petitioner was again transferred to District Election Office, Karnal vide order dated 08.07.2005. Apparently, the petitioner was not happy even at Karnal and again he made a request for transfer at District Election Office, Civil Writ Petition No.11919 of 2008 2 Panchkula, however he was transferred to District Election Office, Amabala vide impugned order dated 20.08.2007. In my opinion, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been repeatedly transferred, is belied by the above facts. The transfers dated 08.07.2005 and 20.08.2007 were made because of requests made by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Dr.Dev Parkash Chugh vs. State of Punjab and others 2005 (4) SCT 726, wherein this Court held as follows:- “In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that such policies/guidelines ought to be normally adhered to but if any deviation has to be made the order must contain the reasons, which should be transparent so that the same are acceptable and are within the vision of the concerned. In the case at hand, the order of transfer does not contain administrative reasons for transferring the petitioner nor any public interest has been disclosed in the order as well as in the written statement. On the other hand, the petitioner has also not disclosed any mala fide intention on the part of the employer as also the colourable exercise of power. Thus, in the totality of the facts disclosed before us, we conclude that since no reasons have been adhered to in the facts and circumstances of this case. It would mean that each case which falls within the ambit of the policies/guidelines has to be examined by the concerned quarters and the orders should be passed accordingly. Resultantly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order of transfer dated 20.06.2005, Annexure Civil Writ Petition No.11919 of 2008 3 P-11, is quashed with no order as to costs.” He has also relied upon the case of Darshan Kumar vs. State of Punjab and others 2006 (2) S.C.T. 409, in which a Division Bench has held as follows:- “In view of the above, the impugned order, Annexure P1, which is against the transfer policy of the State pertaining to its employees who are due to retire within the next two years, cannot be allowed to stand. The same is, therefore, quashed and the writ petition is allowed, leaving parties to bear their own costs.” In view of what has been extracted the abovesaid judgments, do not help the petitioner. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. May 20, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) mamta-II JUDGE