IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3562 of 2010. Judgment reserved on 25.5.2011. Date of decision: 13.6.2011. Purshotam Dass … 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. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents No. 1 & 2: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur,Addl. AG. For the respondent No.3: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.5.2010 whereby he has been transferred from Kheneri (Rampur) to Civil Hospital, Kotgarh, District Shimla. 2. The petitioner is working as a Dental Hygienist. It is not disputed that one Shri Tikkam Ram-respondent No.3 herein was also working as Dental Hygienist in Mahatma Gandhi Medical Services Complex (MGMSC), Kheneri. There was one vacant post of Dental Hygienist in Civil Hospital, Kotgarh. Respondent No.3-Tikkam Ram was initially transferred/posted to Civil Hospital, Kotgarh vide order dated 20.5.2010 Annexure P-1, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. : 2 : but four days later, this order was cancelled and the petitioner was transferred/posted from MGMSC, Kheneri to Civil Hospital, Kotgarh, District Shimla. The petitioner has challenged this order and this Court granted interim order in favour of the petitioner on 28.6.2010. 3. The main ground of the petitioner is that the order in question has been passed only with a view to accommodate respondent No.3-Tikkam Ram and has not been passed in the public interest. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed reply. It is admitted that petitioner was initially serving at Referral Hospital, Reckong Peo and thereafter he was posted to MGMSC, Kheneri which is a station of his choice. According to respondents No.1 and 2, the petitioner has completed his normal stay at MGMSC, Kheneri and, therefore, he (petitioner) was posted to Civil Hospital, Kotgarh. 4. Most importantly, according to the respondents No.1 and 2, there was only one post of Dental Hygienist available at MGMSC, Kheneri, but two persons were working there and one person was surplus. Therefore, respondent No.3-Tikkam Ram was initially ordered to be transferred from MGMSC, Kheneri to Civil Hospital, Kotgarh, but he made a representation and thereafter his order was cancelled and the petitioner was transferred. 5. Private respondent-Tikkam Ram has also filed reply and stated that he remained posted at Keylong in District Lahaul : 3 : & Spiti right from 1988 to 1995 and thereafter was posted at Rampur and when the Referral Hospital, Rampur was shifted to village Kheneri he was also posted there. Respondent No.3 admitted that when the order of his transfer was passed he made a representation to the State that he is a heart patient and since his wife is working as an Assistant in L.I.C. office at Rampur, therefore, he may be allowed to continue at Kheneri and due to this representation his transfer order was cancelled. He has also produced on record material to show that he is a heart patient and had made a request for his transfer to the Director of Dental Health Services,Himachal Pradesh. This Court cannot interfere in transfer matters unless the same are actuated by mala fides or the transfer orders are perverse or arbitrary. In the present case, on consideration of the representation of respondent No.3 the State took a conscious decision to cancel the transfer order. The decision cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse. 6. It would also be pertinent to mention that since 28.6.2010 when interim directions were issued in favour of the petitioner no person has functioned as Dental Hygienist at Kotgarh. Both the petitioner and private respondent continued to function at Kheneri where there is only one sanctioned post of Dental Hygienist available. What was the fault of the people belonging to Kotgarh that they have been deprived of the services of a Dental Hygienist for almost a year? A Division : 4 : Bench of this Court in CWP No. 503 of 2007 titled Gurdev Jassal v. State of H.P. & ors, decided on 21.5.2007 had made the following observations while dealing with a similar matter. I can only reiterate what was said in that case:- “We have also noticed a growing trend that while granting stay in transfer cases the judicial authorities do not take into consideration the adverse impact which such orders may have on the general public. Stay orders are granted at the instance of the applicants resulting in one or more than one officers of the same rank being posted at one place against one vacant post, like in the present case. This results in the public suffering at the place where no officer is posted and the office remaining vacant. We can take judicial notice, and in fact we have noticed in a large number of cases that due to stay orders being granted, posts of Teachers and Doctors in remote areas keep lying vacant. After obtaining the stay orders, the officers are in no hurry to get their matter heard. Why should the students in schools suffer for lack of Teachers? Why should the patients suffer in the absence of the Doctors? This court cannot shut its eyes to these important questions. In our considered opinion, while deciding the question whether stay should be granted or not in the matters regarding transfer of the employees, the judicial authority must keep in mind the interest of the public also. We are also of the view that where the applicant- petitioner has a strong case, it is better to decide the case itself and quash the transfer orders rather than granting a stay which continues for an indefinitely long period.” In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. The stay order is vacated and the petitioner is directed to join at Civil Hospital, Kotgarh forthwith. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. 13th June, 2011 (Krn Guleria)