IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP.-No. 393-2009 Reserved On 7.8.2009. Date of Decision: August 17th, 2009. Smt. Jiwan Lata. …Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner : Mr.Dalip Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents 1 to 3.: Mr.R.M.Bisht and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. _________________________________________________ SURINDER SINGH,J. By means of this petition the petitioner has sought quashing of her transfer order dated 11th February, 2009 (Annexure:P4) from Hamirpur to Una. Heard and gone through the record. The petitioner is a Planning Officer in the State Town and Country Planning department. On 23.6.2007 she was transferred from Una to Hamirpur on her request. On 1.10.2008. Respondent No.4 Manohar Lal Sharma, a Junior Engineer working in the office of Divisional Town Planner, 2 Hamirpur was promoted and posted as Planning Officer in the office of Sub-Divisional Town Planner, Una. On 11.2.2009 (Annexure:P7) within five months the respondent No.4 was transferred from Una to Hamirpur in place of the petitioner but she was ordered to be without TTA and joining time, meaning thereby that she made the request for her transfer but according to the petitioner she had never made a request for her transfer. Thus, she felt aggrieved by the said order and assailed it in this petition by filing the writ of certiorari that she was transferred within a short span of less than two years. The stay was issued in favour of the petitioner. Thus the respondent No.3 in supersession of earlier transfer orders dated 11.2.2009 (Annexure:P7), respondent No.4 was treated relieved from his duties w.e.f. 18.2.2009 (F.N.). Therefore he joined again at Una (Annexure:RD). The respondents filed the response. While justifying the transfers it is submitted that owing to inadvertent clerical mistake in the order dated 11.2.2009 without TTA/JT was mentioned but subsequently it was allowed by issuing a corrigendum dated 5.6.2009 as there was no willingness of either of the parties for transfer. The perusal of record shows that respondent No.4 was absorbed in the department of Town and Country Planning w.e.f. 14.7.1999 when he was posted at Hamirpur. On promotion, he was posted as Planning Officer at Una and then at Hamirpur against a vacant post. Whereas the 3 petitioner had been working in Hamirpur for the last 20 years i.e. w.e.f. 3.6.1989 except for the period 12.8.1997 to 18.12.1997 and 15.11.2006 to 25.6.2007 (Total seven months). The period of short stay, if any, stands condoned by the competent authority while considering their transfers and keeping in view the overall length of stay at one place, therefore, on considering the rival contentions and after perusal the record produced before us relating to the transfers in dispute, we do not find any arbitrariness or any violation of the provision of Constitution as alleged. Transfer is a necessary incident of service. The petitioner has no vested right to remain posted at one place i.e. at Hamirpur through out her service. Thus no relief can be granted to the petitioner as such petition is dismissed. The stay order granted on 17.2.2009 stands vacated. No orders as to costs. The record of the respondents 1 and 2 be returned to the learned Assistant Advocate General. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. (Surinder Singh), Judge. August 17, 2009 (R)