IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.: 1511 of 2009. Reserved on: 10.07.2009. Decided on: 16.07.2009. Jagan Nath. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2: Mr. R.M. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. Surinder Singh, Judge: The petitioner, a Senior Assistant posted in I.P.H. Circle, Kullu, by means of this petition has challenged his transfer to Nerwa made vide office order Annexure P-3, dated 28.2.2009 and sought the mandamus to allow him to continue in service in I.P.H. Circle, Kullu. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. In fact, the petitioner has been working in I.P.H. Kullu Circle with effect from October, 1977 except for a period of 2 years and 9 months when he was transferred to Keylong and Udaypur i.e. at 1Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Keylong w.e.f. October, 1992 to November, 1994 and at Udaypur with effect from December, 1994 to August, 1995, but right from August, 1995, he remained posted at Kullu as Senior Assistant. In the year 2008, the petitioner was transferred, in the general transfers from I.P.H. Circle, Kullu to I.P.H. Division, Nerwa vide office order Annexure P-1, dated 13.6.2008 in place of Smt. Jagdamba, but later his transfer was cancelled vide order dated 7th July, 2008 and in his place Shri Roshan Lal, respondent No.3 was transferred from I.P.H. Circle, Kullu to Nerwa vide Annexure P-4, dated 18.2.2009. The transfer of Roshan Lal aforesaid was approved by the higher authorities in place of the petitioner, condoning his short stay subject to posting the substitute and to transfer the senior most person with longest stay. The petitioner raised the contention that he was arbitrarily transferred to Nerwa which was against his reasonable expectation and was wrongly chosen for his transfer against the longer stay in preference to others to adjust respondent No.3. The contention of respondents No.1 and 2 as could be gathered from the short reply and also the affidavit filed by the Engineer-in-Chief pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on 29.5.2009 is that though the office of I.P.H. Division No.1, Kullu is at Kullu and that of Division No.II is at Shamshi (Kullu), the other divisions are situated at various places in Kullu and Lahaul Spiti districts having a long distance, yet the sanctioned strength of each office was separate. The transfers are made not on circle level but on each office level. The approval of competent authority was to transfer the incumbent against the longer stay of I.P.H. Circle, Kullu, - 3 - therefore, the other divisional officials have no concern with the present case and thus the circle cadre strength was taken into consideration while implementing the approval. According to the respondents there are only six sanctioned posts of Senior Assistants in I.P.H. Circle, Kullu and the petitioner was having the longest stay amongst all except a woman employee, Smt. Kamla who was posted in Circle, Kullu with effect from November, 1979 to May, 1994, thereafter she was transferred to Flood Protection Division, Kullu and presently she is working in Division No.II, Kullu falling in Kullu I.P.H. Circle. Authorities did not think proper to post woman employee at Nerwa and considered the petitioner for his transfer to the said place, having the longest stay. On having considered the entire aspect of the matter and in view of the contentions raised by both the parties, we find that in the instant case the transfer of the petitioner from I.P.H. Circle, Kullu to I.P.H. Division, Nerwa has a rationale behind it and cannot be said to be arbitrary, malafide or for extraneous reasons other than the proper consideration of the matter and exigencies of service. His stay in Kullu Circle is longest, i.e. for about 28 years, the petitioner has no vested right to remain posted in I.P.H. Circle, Kullu, as such, his prayer in this petition cannot be acceded to, hence, rejected. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge. (Surinder Singh) Judge. July 16, 2009. (sck).