IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 3461 of 2011 Date of Decision: 21.9.2011 Nek Ram …Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. and another … Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. Deepak Gupta, J (oral) 1. The petitioner by means of this petition has challenged the order dated 10.5.2011 whereby he has been transferred from Dharampur Range, Jogindernagar Division to Neri-Neshu beat, Kataula Range, Mandi. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was transferred to Dharampur Range, Jogindernagar Division from Dodar Beat of Kamlah Range only 18 months back and therefore, the petitioner should not have been transferred without completing his normal tenure of three years. It is further submitted by him 2 that he had requested for the transfer only because of the reason that his parents are very old and there was none to look after them and once the request for transfer had been accepted he should not have been transferred before completing his normal tenure. The petitioner has also alleged that he has been transferred because his wife contested the elections for the member of Zila Parishad in December, 2010 against the candidate of the ruling party. 3. As far as the second allegation is concerned, there is no person who has been arrayed as respondent in personal capacity. There are no specific allegations against any person. General allegations have been made but it is well settled law that allegations of mala fide have to be made against a particular person. 4. I had called for the records and on going through the records I find that the transfer of the petitioner has been approved at the highest level. Transfer is an incidence of service and the guidelines relating to tenure, as the name itself suggests, are only guidelines and once the Chief Executive of the State decides that for some reasons, in the public 3 interest, an employee is to be transferred this Court cannot sit over such an order unless it is shown that the order is arbitrary or capricious or actuated by mala fides. 5. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was accommodated at Dharampur Range, Jogindernagar Division because he had to look after his old parents, in case he makes a representation to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, the same shall be considered and in case any vacancy is available in or around Dharampur then the case of the petitioner shall be considered sympathetically for being posted at such place. No costs. 21st September, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.