IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4400 of 2010 Date of decision: 14th September, 2010 Ramesh Chand ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For respondents: Mr. Rajesh Mandhora, Deputy Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged his transfer from Mandi to Shimla. There are two main grounds of challenge. Firstly that the petitioner can only be posted within his range i.e. Central Range, Mandi and secondly that a policy of pick and choose has been adopted by respondent No. 2, because there are many police officials having longer tenure than the petitioner at Mandi, who have been retained at Mandi, but the petitioner has been chosen to be transferred to Shimla. 2. The documents relied upon by the petitioner do not show that Constables or Head Constables have to be 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 posted within a particular Range. The communications relied upon by the petitioner, i.e. Annexures P-1 and P-3 do not in any manner advance the case of the petitioner. Annexure P-1 only states that an employee shall be posted at one place minimum for two years and maximum for four years. There is nothing in this document to show that Constables cannot be posted outside the Range. Similarly, Annexure P-3 only deals with transfer between Battalions and Districts and does not lay down that constables cannot be posted outside their Range. 3. As far as the second contention is concerned, in a disciplined force like the Police, some discretion has to be given to the officers to make postings. Unless it is shown that the postings are totally arbitrary, or actuated by malafidies, this court cannot interfere in such transfers in the police force. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the writ petition. Accordingly the same is dismissed. No orders as to costs. Interim order is vacated. (Deepak Gupta) Judge September 14th, 2010 (KRS)