IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.: 3471 of 2011. Decided on: 15.07.2011. _____________________________________________ Shri Megh Singh. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Vikram Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.3. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner was posted as Multi Purpose Health Worker in the respondent-department. He was transferred to C.H. Dharampur from Sarkaghat on 30th June, 2010. He has been transferred vide Annexure P-1, dated 7th May, 2011 from Dharampur to Civil Hospital, Sujanpur Tihra. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - 2. Mr. Rajiv Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that his client should have been permitted to complete his normal tenure of 3 to 5 years at the present station of posting. He then contended that the transfer of his client has been effect in order to accommodate respondent No.3, who had already completed his normal tenure at C.H. Sandhole, District Mandi. 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Vikram Thakur, Advocate have supported the issuance of transfer order Annexure P-1, dated 7th May, 2011. Mr. Vikram Thakur, learned Advocate has also argued that one Shri Ramesh Chand was also a necessary party. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner has joined his duties at C.H. Dharampur only on 30th June, 2010. He has been transferred after a period of 11 months to Civil Hospital, Sujanpur Tihra. Respondent No.3, who had completed his normal tenure at C.H. Sandhole, has been transferred to Dharampur. The professed norm is that an incumbent has to be permitted to discharge his/her duties at a particular place of posting for a period of 3 to 5 years. The Court is of the considered view that there was neither any public interest nor administrative exigency while transferring the petitioner from the present place of posting. - 3 - 6. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has also argued that the petitioner has remained in and around the distance of 20-25 Kms. from the present place of posting i.e. Dharampur. The fact that the petitioner was posted at Dharampur on 30th June, 2010 was within the knowledge of the respondent-State. The petitioner is only aggrieved by his transfer whereby he is being replaced by respondent No.3, Shri Dalip Kumar. In view of this, Shri Ramesh Chand was not a necessary party. It is for the employer to transfer an employee. However, the exercise to transfer must be undertaken judiciously and not arbitrarily. In the present case, the transfer of the petitioner is clouded with legal malafides since the petitioner has been transferred to accommodate respondent No.3 without there being any public interest or administrative exigency. 10. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure P-1, dated 7th May, 2011 qua the petitioner and respondent No.3 is quashed. Respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to complete his normal tenure of 3 to 5 years at the present place of posting. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. July 15, 2011. (sck).