IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3653 of 2010. Date of decision: 25.5.2011. Varinder Kumar … Petitioner. Versus State of HP & Ors. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1. No. For the petitioner: Mr. N.S. Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents No.1 & 2: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. AG with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. AG. For the respondent No.3: None. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.6.2010 whereby he has been transferred from Electrical Sub Division (ESD) Mandi to Electrical Sub Division (ESD) Udaipur in District Lahaul & Spiti and the order dated 19.5.2010 whereby respondent No.3 was transferred to Udaipur has been cancelled. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that one Shri Kirpa Ram was posted at ESD, Udaipur in District Lahaul & Spiti. This is a tribal area where a person is not expected to work for more than two winters and three summers. It appears that Shri Kirpa Ram had spent more than his normal tenure and, therefore, he filed a writ petition in this Court praying that the respondents be 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. : 2 : directed to transfer him outside the tribal area. The State was directed to decide the representation of Shri Kirpa Ram and thereafter order Annexure P-1 dated 19.5.2010 was issued whereby Shri Kirpa Ram was transferred to ESD, Sundernagar and Shri Rajinder Singh who was working at ESD, Sundernagar was transferred in his place. Within about a month, these orders were cancelled and in place of Rajinder Singh-respondent No.3, Shri Virender Kumar was sent to ESD, Udaipur. The petitioner has challenged this cancellation order basically on the ground that his transfer has not been ordered in the public interest and that the cancellation order has been issued just to accommodate respondent No.3-Rajinder Singh. 3. Notice of this petition was issued to respondent No.3 who has not put in appearance despite service, both at the pre- admission stage as well as the post-admission stage. The State has filed the reply and other than stating that the second order has been issued in the public interest, nothing has been placed on record to show why this order was issued. The State has not even placed on record any material to show that respondent No.3 made any representation to it which led to the issuance of the second order whereby the previous order was cancelled. 4. It would be pertinent to mention that admittedly the petitioner has not completed his normal tenure of three years at his present place of posting. The petitioner worked from 1998 to 2008 in ESD, Mandi (Section Ratti). Thereafter he spent merely one year : 3 : in ESD, Sundernagar (Section Karsog) and thereafter was again brought back to ESD, Mandi (Ratti Section). On the other hand respondent No.3 right from his initial appointment, i.e. 1.1.2002 to 2010 has been posted in ESD, Sundernagar (Section Karsog), with Headquarter at Karsog. 5. No doubt, transfer of an employee is a matter which falls solely within the domain of the State. This Court cannot go into the merits of the decisions of the State, unless the same are arbitrary, perverse or actuated by mala fide. However, when the State issues a transfer order and cancels it within one month, when notice is issued by the Court, the least that is expected is that the State should give some justification for cancelling the previous order. A presumption is there that the Government has issued all orders in the public interest. Therefore, if the first order is in the public interest what was the reason and why the same has been cancelled and what were the reasons which led to the passing of the second order. No substantial material has been placed on record in this writ petition except that the petitioner is younger in age and due to this reason he has been transferred to tribal region. There is hardly three years difference in the age of petitioner and respondent No.3 and both of them served in or around their native place and there should be a better reason for cancellation of the first order. 6. Therefore, I have no option but to quash the second order which appears to be actuated only with a motive to help : 4 : respondent No.3 who has remained posted at one station for more than 9 years ever since his appointment. Since, the post at Udaipur is vacant for a long time, the respondent No.3 is directed to join at Udaipur on or before 15th June, 2011. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. 25th May, 2011 (Krn Guleria)