IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2647 of 2010 Decided on: 17.3.2011 Ramesh Chand ..…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : None. For respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General, for the respondents No.1 and 2. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed on the following prayer: “That a writ of certiorari may be issued and the impugned transfer order dated 21.5.2010 and reversion order dated 21.5.2010 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to allow the petitioner to continue as Superintendent Grade-II on adhoc basis till he is considered for promotion on regular basis as Superintendent Grade-II and posted accordingly.” 2. In reply, respondents No. 1 and 2 have taken the following stand vide paras 2 to 4 of the preliminary submissions: “2. That the petitioner was appointed as a clerk on 16-3-1983 and promoted as Senior Assistant 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 on 27-3-2003. Since last more than 27 years, he remained at Shimla and he is the senior most Senior Assistant having longest stay at Shimla. Due to the vacant post of Senior Assistant with the Settlement Officer Kangra division, at Dharamshala he has been transferred there from Shimla. The Government has approved the transfer of the petitioner vide order No. Rev. A(B) 6-1/2010 dated 1-4-2010 annexed as Annexure P-3. It is most respectfully submitted that the transfer is the prerogative of the State Government. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by transferring him to the Office of the Settlement Officer, Kangra division. Hence, he has no cause to challenge his transfer orders before this Hon’ble Court as having longest stay at Shimla. 3. That this Hon’ble Court may appreciate the facts that the integrity of the petitioner is doubtful as being an officiating Superintendent, he has procured the official documents annexed as Annexure P-1 (marked as page No. 186 of the file), P-3, managed to photostated before marking), P-4, (copied from office copy), P-8, (page 58 and 59 of the official file) and P-9, (page No. 63 of the official file) without obtaining any permission from the competent authority. Thus he misused his official position for his personal gains. Such persons who have doubtful integrity cannot be retained on such a responsible 3 post. Therefore, the predecessor of replying respondent has rightly withdrawn the orders of the officiating/adhoc appo9intment and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief due to his own, acts, conduct and deeds. 4. That the petitioner has misused his official position as being a officiating Superintendent he recommended his own case for adhoc promotion ignoring the noting of the dealing Assistant for continuous of officiating duties of Superintendent. The proposal made by the petitioner himself for his own adhoc appointment was turned down by the predecessor of replying respondent N.2, but subsequently n the request of the representatives of the office, the respondent No.2 ordered to continue with earlier work arrangement of officiating Superintendent which fact is evident from the noting sheet of the file which has been annexed herewith as Annexure-R-2/1. But the petitioner being an officiating Superintendent prepared the order of his own adhoc appointment instead of the orders of the continuity of officiating duties as Superintendent Grade-II and which was signed inadvertently by the predecessor of replying respondent No.2 as he thought that the order has been prepared as per the approval given on the noting No. 227 on 10-9-2009. Such dealings cast aspersion on the conduct of the 4 petitioner and such person cannot be allowed to perform the duties of the post of superintendent Grade-II. Hence, the present petition deserves dismissal on this score. The noting N. 225 written by the petitioner and the order of the predecessor of replying respondent No.2 i.e. noting no. 225 and 227 are annexed as Annexure-R 2/1 and the order issued in compliance of noting No. 227 are at Annexure-R- 2/2.” 3. The following averments have been set up on behalf of respondent No. 3 vide Para 7 © and (d): “© That the averments set out in this Sub Para of the petition are totally wrong and denied. It is relevant to point out here that the petitioner has already completed more than 27 years in Shimla in the present Department. Therefore, the petition is not maintainable in the present form. (d) That the averments set out in this sub Para of the petition are totally wrong and denied. It is relevant to mention here that the clarification was sought from the office of the respondent No. 2 vide Annexure P-9 and the proper reply was made by the competent authorities in this regard and also shown reasons that his transfer was cancelled. It is also relevant to mention here that the replying respondent is working as Sr. Assistant, whereas, the petitioner is 5 working as Superintendent Grade-II. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.” 4. At the time of hearing the learned Deputy Advocate General has filed a communication, addressed by the settlement Officer, Shimla Division to the learned Advocate General,Himachal Pradesh which is as under : “As per discussion with the Additional Advocate General on 16-3-2011 with out office Superintendent, it is stated that there is neither any post of Superintendent nor Senior Assistant Vacant in this office as on today against which the petitioner can be adjusted in the office of the respondent No.l2 as the regular incumbent has joined his duties on 10-11- 2010. However, there is a post of Senior Assistant vacant in the office of the Settlement Officer, Kangra division at Dharamshala where the petitioner has already been adjusted/transferred. While hearing of the above writ petition, this fact may kindly be brought to the notice of the Hon’ble High Court.” 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is disposed of with the direction that subject to the petitioner making a detailed representation supported by documents along with copy of this judgment to respondent No.1 within a fortnight from today, the same shall be considered and decided by the said respondent in accordance with law within another month after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so, desired. 6 6. The petition as also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. 17th March, 2011 (priti)