CWP No. 8745 of 2010 20.04.2011 Present: Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Navlesh Verma, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Petitioner was transferred from Government Senior Secondary School (Boys) Kullu to Government Senior Secondary School Kharahal in terms of order dated 24.4.2010 (Annexure P-2). He approached this Court and in his petition CWP No. 1883 of 2010 a direction was issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation and the hardships which he was facing as a consequence of such transfer. 2. In terms of order dated 8.9.2010 (Annexure P-4) the Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh has decided petitioner’s representation inter alia observing as under:- “I have gone through the entire record of the case and verbal submissions made by petitioner and respondent No. 3 and have also perused the orders of Hon’ble High Court of H.P. Shri Prem Singh has submitted that he is a physically challenged person thus he may be retained at Kullu. Sh. Prem Singh has been transferred from GSSS (B) Kullu to GSSS, Kharahal (Kullu) after the stay of about 13 years 9 months, he is also having LMV driving licence valid upto 8.8.2015. Moreover the distance between his previous and new posting station is less than 10 KMs, where transportation facilities i.e. by Bus etc are available. His physical disability certificate is because of his disability of hand. Therefore, it will not be appropriate to retain the petitioner at GSSS (B) Kullu by cancelling his transfer orders.” -2- 3. The scope of interference in a case of transfer is limited. From the record it could not be shown as to how the order of transfer is arbitrary. No malafides have been alleged against any person. The alleged hardships faced by the petitioner have been considered by the appropriate authority while passing the impugned order (Annexure P-4). 4. Learned counsel for the private respondent submits that petitioner, in his first petition had not only concealed certain facts but had made mis-representation. In view of the findings already returned I do not see any reason to venture into this aspect of the matter. Present petition, devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 20, 2011 (PK)