IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No. 2578 of 2011. Judgment reserved on: 14.6.2011. Date of decision: 15.6.2011. Kamla Sharma …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. S.M. Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Kuldip Singh, J. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of office order dated 21.4.2011 vide which respondent No. 4 has been adjusted at GSSS(G), Rampur (SML) vice petitioner with TTA and joining time. The petitioner has also challenged office order dated 25.4.2011 vide which the petitioner has been relieved of her duties on 25.4.2011 (AN) and has been directed to report for further duty to Principal, GSSS, Shamathla. The petitioner has further prayed for mandamus directing the respondents to allow her to complete her normal tenure at GSSS(G), Rampur (Shimla) till completion of academic session Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… 2011-12 of her son studying in 10th standard in DAV Public School, Rampur. 2. The facts in brief are that petitioner was initially appointed on special contract basis in GSSS(B), Rampur on 13.11.2000. The services of the petitioner were regularized on 25.11.2009. It has been alleged that one Vinay Kumar, Lecturer Political Science was also appointed on 20.10.2000 on special contract basis in GSSS, Triloknath. He filed CWP No. 506 of 2010 seeking his transfer from GSSS, Triloknath on the ground that he had served the tribal area for over a decade, he sought his transfer to the place of his choice. CWP No. 506 of 2010 was disposed of by the High Court by judgement dated 4.3.2011. The High Court permitted Vinay Kumar to make a representation to respondent No.2. 3. The petitioner on regularization was posted in the same school i.e. GSSS(B), Rampur. The petitioner was transferred in May/ June 2010 and was ordered to be posted in GSSS, Shamathla (SML). The petitioner made a representation to the respondent- department apprising her domestic compulsion and the fact that her only son was studying in 9th standard in DAV Public School, Rampur, as such a request was made by the petitioner for retaining her at Rampur. The said request of the petitioner was acceded to by the department and she was posted as Lecturer (History) at GSSS(G), Rampur. 4. The department vide office order dated 20.4.2011 transferred respondents No. 4 and 5 to GSSS(G), Rampur and GSSS, Shamathla (SML) respectively. At GSSS (G), Rampur, there were two posts of Lecturer (History) prior to office order dated …3… 20.4.2011. The petitioner and respondent No. 5 were working as Lecturers (History) in GSSS (G), Rampur. The respondent No. 5 had completed his normal tenure in GSSS(G), Rampur being regular appointee. The department had transferred respondent No. 5 to GSSS Shamathla. 5. The respondent No. 4 in pursuance of office order dated 20.4.2011 gave her joining in the school on 21.4.2011. The department vide office order dated 21.4.2011 cancelled the transfer of respondent No. 5 and in turn the petitioner was transferred to GSSS, Shamathla. The petitioner has been transferred under the garb of alleged longer stay at Rampur and has been transferred to GSSS, Shamathla. 6. The respondent has relieved the petitioner from her duties on 25.4.2011 and, therefore, the petitioner has filed the petition. It has been alleged that transfer order of the petitioner is the result of non application of mind. There was no reason to change the office order dated 20.4.2011. The respondent NO. 5 has completed his normal tenure at Rampur. The services of the petitioner were regularized in November 2009, she would have completed her normal tenure at Rampur in November 2012. The period of service rendered by the petitioner on special contract basis is not to be included while calculating the period of stay of the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 has been transferred from GSSS, Shamathla, where she had worked hardly for less than one year. The impugned transfer order has been passed by respondent No. 2 without prior approval of the competent authority. It has been alleged that respondent No. 5 is wielding …4… special influence on respondent No. 2 and that is why the office order dated 21.4.2011 has been passed. The department has not considered the fact that son of the petitioner is studying in 10th standard at Rampur, which is a critical class. 7. The husband of the petitioner is serving as Senior Assistant in H.P. Tourism Development Corporation, Rampur, hence on account of couple case the petitioner is entitled to be posted at Rampur. On completion of 10th class of the son of the petitioner, she would not insist for being retained at Rampur. The petitioner has been wrongly relieved at Rampur. The distance between Shamathla and Rampur is about 40 kilometers. 8. The petition was admitted on 27.5.2011. One week time was granted for filing reply as last chance. On 2.6.2011 another last opportunity was given for filing the reply but till date no reply has been filed by respondents No. 1 to 3. The respondents No. 4 and 5 have contested the petition by filing separate replies. The respondent No. 4 in her reply has stated that in pursuance of office order dated 20.4.2011, she has been transferred from GSSS, Shamathla to GSSS (G), Rampur. She submitted her joining on 21.4.2011, which was accepted. The petitioner had been serving in GSSS(Girls and Boys) at Rampur for the last ten years. The respondent No. 4 had earlier served as TGT (Science). In July 2010, she was promoted and posted as Lecturer (History) at GSSS, Shamathla. On 20.4.2011, she was transferred to GSSS(G), Rampur where she joined on 21.4.2011. The respondent No. 4 has prayed for dismissal of the petition. …5… 9. The respondent No. 5 in his reply has stated that petitioner is serving at Rampur for the last about eleven years. The respondent No. 5 is working at GSSS(G), Rampur since May 2008. It has been stated that under the government policy where the services of a special contract or contract teacher or Lecturer are regularized, their stay is counted from the initial appointment if the regularization is on the same station. Therefore, the stay of the petitioner at Rampur is to be counted from the year 2000. It has been stated that mother of respondent No. 5 is totally dependent on him. The father of respondent No. 5 has died on 18.3.2011. The distance between Shamathla and Rampur is 35 kilometers. The respondent No. 5 has prayed for dismissal of the petition. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The grievance of the petitioner is that she was appointed under special contract and her services were regularized only on 25.11.2009. The stay of the petitioner at Rampur is to be counted only from November 2009 when she was regularized and her normal tenure at Rampur would be over in the year 2012. The petitioner has raised the grievance that respondents No. 4 and 5 have been wrongly adjusted at Rampur in preference to petitioner who has better claim for posting at Rampur keeping in view her domestic problems and more particularly the education of her only son studying in 10th standard at Rampur. The petitioner has placed nothing on record in support of her contention that her stay at Rampur is to be counted only from November 2009 when her services were regularized and not from the year 2000. It is admitted case of the petitioner that she …6… was appointed as Lecturer under special contract and posted at Rampur in the year 2000 and since then she is at Rampur. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been contended that she was adjusted at Rampur when her son was studying in 9th class. The son of the petitioner is now in 10th class. There is nothing on record to show that department had accepted the request of the petitioner for her posting at Rampur till the completion of 10th standard by her son. The distance between Shamathla and Rampur is about 35-40 kilometers. The husband of the petitioner is also posted at Rampur. The petitioner and her husband are to run their affairs. At the time of hearing, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that husband of the petitioner is suffering from psychiatric problem but this is not the pleaded case of the petitioner. 11. The scope of interference in transfer matter is very-very limited. The petitioner has not alleged malafide against anyone for transferring her from Rampur to Shamathla nor it is her case that she could not be transferred legally to the present transferred station. The petitioner is at Rampur for the last more than ten years. The department has taken the stand that petitioner has been transferred from Rampur on account of her longer stay at Rampur. The stand taken by the department regarding the transfer of the petitioner from Rampur to Shamathla gets support from the material on record. It is the prerogative of the State to transfer its employee from one station to other station. The transfer order cannot be questioned unless it is based upon some proved malafide or established arbitrariness or violation of statutory rules. The Supreme Court in Union of India and …7… others vs. Muralidhara Menon and another (2009) 9 SCC 304 has held that transfer as is well known is an incident of service. An employee has no right to be posted at a particular place. In Tushar D. Bhatt vs. State of Gujarat and another (2009) 11 SCC 678, the Supreme Court has reiterated the principle that transfer is an incidence of service and transfers are made according to administrative exigencies. The Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2009) 15 SCC 178 has held that courts are always reluctant in interfering with the transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from malafides. The petitioner has failed to bring her case within the parameters laid down by Supreme Court for quashing her transfer order. No legal right of the petitioner has been infringed when she has been transferred from Rampur to Shamathla. There is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. The interim orders passed from time to time shall stand vacated. June 15, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.