IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. No. 3468 of 2011. Decided on : 27th July, 2011. _____________________________________________________ Shyam Singh …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 to 3. : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. None for respondent No. 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner was transferred from G.P.S., Koti to G.P.S., Bajhoa vide order dated 22.08.2009 (Annexure P-1). He joined his duties at G.P.S., Bajhoa. Now, the petitioner has been transferred from G.P.S., Bajhoa to G.P.S., Chawai vide Annexure P-3, dated 30.04.2011. He has only completed one year and ten months at the time when the transfer order was issued. 2. Notice was issued to respondent No. 4. She is duly served. However, neither she is present in person nor represented by any counsel. 3. Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that as per the norms framed by the respondent-State, the petitioner was required to be 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - permitted to discharge his duties as Head Teacher for three to five years at the present place of posting. 4. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that since the petitioner has remained in and around G.P.S., Bajowa for the last 22 years, Court may not interfere with the transfer order. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 6. Petitioner has joined his duties pursuant to order dated 22nd August, 2009 at G.P.S., Bajowa. He has been transferred on 30th April, 2011 from the present place of posting, i.e., G.P.S., Bajowa to G.P.S., Chawai. Petitioner has only completed one year and ten months at G.P.S., Bajowa. It is for the respondent-State to decide where an incumbent should be posted, however, it is equally important that once the norms have been framed, these should be applied judiciously in a transparent and fair manner. There is no reason mentioned in the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 necessitating the transfer of the petitioner before permitting him to complete the normal tenure of three years at G.P.S., Bajowa. The fact that the petitioner has remained posted in and around within a radius of 25 Kms. from G.P.S., Bajowa for the last 9 years was within the knowledge of the respondent-State when the petitioner was transferred from G.P.S., Koti to G.P.S., Bajhoa on 22.08.2009. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure P-3, dated 30.04.2011 is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner and respondent No. 4. Respondents No. 1 to 3 are directed to - 3 - permit the petitioner to continue at G.P.S., Bajowa till the completion of his normal tenure. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge July 27, 2011. (bhupender) - 4 - `