IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.: 3897 of 2011. Decided on: 11.10.2011. ___________________________________________ Chander Parkash. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate for respondent No.4. Rajiv Sharma, Judge, (Oral): Petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer on contract basis in Panchayat Samiti, Sundernagar on 29th March, 2008. The petitioner has been transferred vide Annexure P-4, dated 24th May, 2011 from Panchayat Samiti, Sundernagar to Panchayat Samiti, Dharampur. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - 2. Mr. Surinder Saklani, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the transfer of the petitioner is in breach of Notification dated 10th April, 2008. He has also argued that the transfer of the petitioner has been made on the basis of orders passed by respondent No.2 vide letter dated 16th May, 2011. 3. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General and Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate have vehemently argued that since the petitioner has completed his normal tenure of three years in Panchayat Samiti, Sundernagar, there is no illegality in the transfer order, dated 24th May, 2011. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. The respondent-State has issued Notification dated 10th April, 2008. According to clause 10 of the Notification, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad may transfer the Junior Engineer from one Panchyat Samiti to another Panchayat Samiti on availability of vacancy if the resolution to this effect is passed by the Panchayat Samiti or due to other administrative reasons. 6. In the instant case, the respondents have not placed on record any resolution passed by Panchayat Samiti, Sundernagar for transferring the petitioner from Panchayat Samiti, Sundernagar to Panchayat Samiti, Dharampur. - 3 - Respondents have also not placed on record any tangible evidence to establish that the transfer of the petitioner has been made on any other administrative reasons. The power to transfer of an incumbent is coupled with duty to ensure fairness and judicious approach. It is also evident from Annexure P-4, dated 24th May, 2011 that the transfer of petitioner has been dictated by respondent No.2 vide letter dated 16th May, 2011. The letter dated 16th May, 2011, issued by respondent No.2 is without authority of law. Respondent No.2 has no authority vested in him to transfer the Junior Engineer appointed on contract basis by the Panchayat Samitis. It is only the Chief Executive Officer or Zila Parishad under clause 10 of the Notification, who has been authorised to transfer the Junior Engineer from one Panchayat Samiti to another Panchayat Samiti; that too, on the basis of resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti or due to any other administrative reason. Respondent No.3 has abdicated his powers by issuing the transfer order on the dictation of respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 had to apply his independent mind as per para-meters laid down in clause 10 of Notification dated 10th April, 2008 and not to be dictated by respondent No.2. 11. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. - 4 - Annexure P-4, dated 24th May, 2011 is quashed and set aside. Respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to permit the petitioner to continue his duties as Junior Engineer on contract basis at Panchayat Samiti, Sundernagar. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. October 11, 2011. (sck).