IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. No. 4044 of 2011. Decided on: 30th June, 2011. _____________________________________________________ Indira Dogra. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 and 2. : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. For respondent No. 3. : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Petitioner was transferred from Sub Centre Baldiyan to Sub Centre Moolkoti vide office order dated 07.03.2011. She was relieved on 21.03.2011, pursuant to which she joined her duties at Sub Centre Moolkoti. However, the petitioner has been transferred vide Annexure P-2 dated 16.05.2011 to Health Sub Centre Tangnu, District Shimla. 2. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the petitioner has joined her duties at Sub Centre Moolkoti on 21.03.2011 and was required to complete her normal tenure of three years at the present place of posting. He then contended that the transfer of the petitioner from Sub Centre Moolkoti to Health Sub Centre Tangnu has been made to accommodate respondent No. 3, who 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - was under transfer from Health Sub Centre, Bagha Ghat to Health Sub Centre Tangnu. He then contended that petitioner’s children are pursuing their education in B.S.C. 1st year and +2 standard. 3. Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has strenuously argued that for the last one year, petitioner has remained within a radius of 25 kms.. He then argued that though his client was under transfer from Health Sub Centre, Bagha Ghat to Health Sub Centre, Tangnu, but on the basis of the representation made by her, the transfer order was cancelled on 16.05.2011 and she was posted at Mool Koti, where she joined her duties on 28.05.2011. 4. Respondent-State has not chosen to file any reply. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner was transferred from Sub Centre Baldiyan to Sub Centre Moolkoti vide office order dated 07.03.2011, pursuant to which, she joined her duties at Sub Centre Moolkoti. Strangely, she has been transferred within a period of two months on the basis of letter dated 16.05.2011 to Health Sub Centre Tangnu, District Shimla. Health Sub Centre Tangnu is at a distance of more than 100 Kms. from her present place of posting, i.e., Moolkoti. Petitioner’s daughter is studying in B.S.C. 1st year in Government College, Sanjauli and her son is pursuing +2 from Monal Public School, Sanjauli. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 that the petitioner has been transferred after clubbing her stay within a radius of 25 kms.. This position was within the knowledge of the - 3 - State at the time when the transfer order was made, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Sub Centre Baldiyan to Sub Centre Moolkoti on 07.03.2011. Respondent No. 3 was under transfer from Health Sub Centre, Bagha Ghat to Health Sub Centre, Tangnu vide office order dated 03.05.2011. She has been accommodated vide office order dated 16.05.2011 at Sub Centre Mool Koti. It is apparent that the entire exercise has been undertaken by the respondent-State to unduly accommodate respondent No. 3 at the cost of petitioner, who had joined her duties at Sub Centre Moolkoti pursuant to transfer order dated 07.03.2011. 6. Now, as far as the personal difficulties of petitioner and respondent No. 3 are concerned, petitioner’s two children are pursuing their studies at Shimla and the only child of respondent No. 3 is studying in +1. It was not open to the respondent-State to transfer the petitioner after permitting her to join her duties at the new place of posting, i.e., Sub Centre Moolkoti on 21.03.2011 in mid-academic session. The Court is of the considered view that the transfer policy must be followed uniformly. An incumbent, who had already been permitted to join at a new place of posting, cannot be transferred, save and except on very very compelling reasons and, that too, in larger public interest and administrative exigency. There is no reason mentioned in Annexure P-2, dated 16.05.2011 necessitating the transfer of the petitioner from Health Sub Centre Moolkoti to Health Sub Centre Tangnu. The decision of the respondent-State to transfer the petitioner after a period of two months is arbitrary, illegal, unjust and, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. - 4 - 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure P-2, dated 16.05.2011 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner and respondent No. 3. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed to permit the petitioner to discharge her duties at Health Sub Centre Moolkoti pursuant to her initial joining on 21.03.2011. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge June 30, 2011. (bhupender) - 5 - `