IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 3941/2011 Decided on:12.8.2011 _____________________________________________ Bhupinder Singh. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondents No.3 and 4. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner was ordered to be transferred to I&PH Division Thural in the month of June, 2008. He was transferred from I&PH Division, Thural to I&PH Sub Division, Baijnath, District Kangra vide order dated 12.5.2011. He submitted his joining report at I&PH, Sub Division, Baijnath on 18.5.2011. However, the fact of the matter is that orders dated 12.5.2011 were cancelled on 16.5.2011. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 2. Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel has strenuously argued that the action of the respondent-State of issuing order dated 16.5.2011 whereby the earlier order dated 12.5.2011 has been cancelled, is illegal, arbitrary, thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to him, in sequel to order dated 12.5.2011, his client has already joined his duties on 18.5.2011 and he came to know about the cancellation of order dated 12.5.2011 only on 27.5.2011. He finally contended that no reason has been assigned why the order dated 12.5.2011 has been cancelled. 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has justified the issuance of order dated 16.5.2011. Respondents No. 3 and 4 though duly served neither present in person nor represented by any counsel. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 5. Petitioner has been transferred, as noticed above, on 12.5.2011 from I&PH Division, Thural to I&PH Sub Division, Baijnath, District Kangra. A conscious decision had been taken whereby the petitioner was transferred from I&PH Division, Thural to I&PH Sub Division, Biajnath. In order to ascertain why 3 the order dated 12.5.2011 has been cancelled; the record was directed to be produced by respondents No.1 and 2. Record has been produced by Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General. I have gone through the entire record to ascertain the reasons why the transfer orders dated 12.5.2011 have been cancelled. No reasons are available on the file leading to cancellation of orders dated 12.5.2011. Petitioner had already joined his duties on 18.5.2011 pursuant to order dated 12.5.2011. It is the prerogative of the employer to transfer an incumbent from one place to another either in public interest or on administrative exigency. However, this power has to be exercised in fair, just and reasonable manner. It should not be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, neither any public interest nor administrative exigency has been mentioned either in the office order dated 16.5.2011 or in the record produced by the respondents No.1 and 2, which has led to cancellation of earlier order dated 12.5.2011. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the present writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-5 dated 16.5.2011, qua the petitioner, is quashed and set aside. Respondents are 4 directed to permit the petitioner to perform his duties at I&PH Sub Division, Baijnath pursuant to his joining on 18.5.2011 as per transfer policy. The record produced by respondents No.1 and 2 be returned against proper receipt. Pending application (s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 12.8.2011 *awasthi*