IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6939 of 2011 Date of decision: 12.9.2011 Praveen Kumar Moudgil …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioners : Sh.V.D. Khidtta, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl.A.G. for Respondent No.1. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner who is working as Assistant Engineer in the I&PH Circle at Una, has challenged the order dated 3rd August, 2011 whereby he has been transferred from IPH Flood Control Sub Division, Amb to IPH Circle at Una. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he was transferred from Amb on 3.8.2011 within a span of less than 1 ½ years only with a view to accommodate private respondent No.2. 3. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the petitioner has been transferred to Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 accommodate respondent No.2 then also the petitioner must show that he has a good case and stand on his own legs. The respondent-State in its reply has given details of the various places where the petitioner worked during his service. The petitioner worked from 1977 to 1983 at Rekong Peo after his initial employment as Junior Engineer. Thereafter, from June, 1983 till January, 2010 whether as a Junior Engineer or Assistant Engineer, the petitioner worked at Una except for a short span of two years from July, 1995 to October, 1997 when he worked at Sirmaur. Even thereafter, the petitioner was posted at Sarahan but he managed to get his transfer to cancelled and was adjusted at Amb which is only 34 kms. from Una. Now again he has been transferred from Amb to Una. 4. No employee has a vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice. The transfer orders issued by the State cannot be interfered by the Court unless it is shown 3 that the transfer has been ordered with mala fide objective or that the transfer order is arbitrary or capricious. The guidelines, no doubt, lay down that a person should be allowed to complete his normal tenure of three years at a Station but these guidelines, as the name itself suggests, are only guidelines and cannot be enforced. As held by the Apex Court, they do not give any right to the aggrieved party to have the guidelines enforced by a judicial order. 5. Transfer is an incidence of service and in a case like the present one where the petitioner has managed to stay for almost his entire career at Una, I find no reason why the extraordinary writ jurisdiction should be exercised in this matter. 6. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the petition which is rejected. No costs. September 12, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge