LPA No. 873 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 873 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 24, 2011 Dr. Satish Kumar …Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Inder Pal Goyat, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 03.05.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition challenging his transfer. 2. The learned Single Judge has given a categorical finding that the writ petitioner-appellant has always preferred posting in District Jhajjar and whenever he was posted outside Jhajjar, he managed his transfer back to Jhajjar. The transfer orders are passed in the administrative exigency and are not open to challenge in writ jurisdiction. Even the policy of transfer is for internal use of the LPA No. 873 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Government and is not justiciable. The learned counsel for the appellant has produced before us a chart showing his transfer from time to time, which simply fortify the view expressed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant was transferred to Sirsa on 16.12.2005 but he came back within a month to Rohtak where he spent 2 years and 6 months then he was again transferred to Jhajjar. When he was transferred to Yamunanagar on 21.01.2010, he did not join and continue to discharge his duty at Birdhana where he has been working till date and is trying to avoid the transfer to Mandewala in District Yamunagar. We are satisfied that the transfer of the appellant is not actuated by any mala fide and has been ordered in the administrative exigency in the public interest. 3. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE May 24, 2011 Atul