IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T)No. 3321 of 2008. Date of decision: 9.7.2009 Prem Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of H.P & ors. .... Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ? For the petitioner: Mr.P.P.Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Sh.R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with Sh.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 4. Sh.Ajay Dhiman, Advocate vice Mr.R.R.Rahi, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) The petitioner by means of this writ petition has challenged the order dated 22.4.2006 whereby he has been transferred from Arki Division to Kotkhai. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as mechanic-cum-Fitter Grade-II (Junior Technician) in the Arki Division. His post is maintained in the circle cadre. He has been posted out of the circle to Kotkhai. The respondent-State has admitted that as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, the post of Mechanic-cum-Fitter Grade-II (Junior Technician) is maintained in the circle cadre. It is also not denied that the petitioner belongs to the 3rd Circle, Solan and the respondent No.5 is an employee of 14th Circle, Rohru. This Court has repeatedly held that when a person belongs to a Circle or District Cadre, he cannot normally be posted outside the Circle/District. The State can, if it give special reasons, transfer such persons out of the Circle/District but since this is not a normal practice, specific reasons must be given for the same. The only reason given in the reply is that the competent authority at the Government level conveyed a direction on 9.3.2006 that the applicant-petitioner be posted at Kotkhai and the respondent No.5 be posted at the place of the petitioner. This reply is totally evasive and in no manner shows what is the public interest or the administrative exigencies involved in transferring the petitioner out of his circle. Since the respondents have failed to give any justification whatsoever for transferring the petitioner outside his circle, the impugned order is arbitrary. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.4.2006 is quashed and set aside. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge July 9, 2009 (Surinder Singh) (m) Judge