IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4377 of 2010. Judgment reserved on 8.3.2011 Date of decision: 16.3.2011. Smt. Himanshi Attri … 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. Surinder Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents 1 to 4: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. AG. For the respondent No.5: Mr. Rupinder Singh, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner by means of this petition has challenged the order dated 19.7.2010 whereby she has been transferred from GPS, Sanwara to GPS Nagar Sywan on the ground that this order has been passed before the expiry of normal tenure of three years only with a view to accommodate respondent No.5-Vidya Thakur. 2. According to the respondents the transfer have been made in the public interest and according to the State the petitioner remained posted for 13 years from 1994 to 2007 and worked only in one school and thereafter she was posted and adjusted within the same block and it is after expiry of three years that she was posted to Nagar Sywan. 3. Similar reply is filed by the respondent No.5 and according to her she was transferred from District Sirmuar. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. : 2 : 4. The petitioner filed rejoinder and raised various objections and took the objection that this transfer had been issued in total violation of the transfer policy and without obtaining approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. 5. I had called for the record of the case and on perusal of the entire record, it is found that in fact the transfers were ordered at a time when the 'Ban' was not in operation totally in the public interest and therefore approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister was not required. However, in the original transfer orders the designation of the petitioner and respondent No.5 was not properly reflected and the second order which is only a classificatory order was issued thereafter. Therefore, no approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister was required. 6. It is also obvious that it is the petitioner who approached the office of Hon'ble Chief Minister and obtained an order that she may not be shifted from Sanwara, but it has come on record that by this time the orders had been issued and implemented. 7. No employee has any vested rights to be posted at a particular place. The petitioner has spent her entire career in and around one place itself and therefore she is not entitled to any relief whatsoever from this Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. 16th March, 2011. (Krn Guleria)