IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1443 of 2011. Judgment reserved on:28.4.2011 Date of decision: 03.05.2011. Nagesh …Petitioner Versus HPSEBL & others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Ms.Anu Tuli Azta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Arvind Sharma, counsel for respondents 1 to 3. Mr.Neeraj Sharma, counsel for R-4. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.3.2011 whereby the earlier transfer orders dated 9.2.2011 have been cancelled. 2. The petitioner and private respondent No.4 both are working as Senior Assistants in the H.P. State Electricity Board Limited (HPSEBL). The petitioner was posted at Operation Circle, Dalhousie whereas respondent No.4 was at Electrical Sub Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Division, Bakloh. It appears that the petitioner made a request that he may be transferred from Dalhousie to Bakloh on the ground that his mother was unwell. This request was acceded to by the respondent Board and the petitioner was transferred to Bakloh and respondent No.4 was transferred from Bakloh to Dalhousie. It is not disputed that the petitioner was relieved from Dalhousie on 3.3.2011 and joined at Bakloh on the same date. According to the petitioner, charge at Bakloh was handed over to him on 7.3.2011. Within a fortnight i.e. on 16.3.2011 the transfer orders were cancelled by the impugned transfer. The petitioner challenges this cancellation. 3. Smt.Anu Tuli, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the request of the petitioner had been accepted then he should not have been transferred back to Dalhousie. The stand of the Board is that transfer is an exigency of service and according to the respondent Board the 3 petitioner has managed to spend most of his service in or around Dalhousie and except for serving three years at Killar. 4. Pursuant to the directions of this court, the respondent Board filed a supplementary affidavit which shows that respondent No.4 has also served most of the time in places close to his home town except for a period of one year and four months when he served at Juri. Both the petitioner and respondent No.4 are in the same boat as far as this aspect of the matter is concerned. Somehow, they have both managed to stay in and around Dalhousie. 5. Even now the posting under challenge is to Bakloh. Normally, this Court would not have interfered in a transfer matter but here when the Board accepted the request of the petitioner and posted him to Bakloh it should have given some explanation as to why the need arose to withdraw the said order. Other than saying that the distance between Dalhousie and Bakloh is only about 15 km. 4 and that transfer is an incidence of service no other reason has been given. 6. Once the Board had passed an order of transfer, transferring the petitioner on his request to Bakloh it should not have cancelled the same without showing what was the public interest or administrative exigency involved. The stand which the respondent Board is now taking that the petitioner has spent a long tenure at Dalhousie, administrative exigencies etc. were all there a month earlier when the original order of transfer was passed. 7. Since no reason has been given as to why the earlier order was cancelled within such a short time, the impugned order is quashed and set-aside. Resultantly, the petitioner shall continue to function at Bakloh and respondent No.4 shall join at Dalhousie. 8. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. May 3, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge