IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 4157 of 2009-I Date of Decision : December 26 , 2011 Smt. Jagdamba Devi wife of Sh. Chaman Rahi, Resident of village and Post Office Meramasit, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Himachal Pradesh through Principal Secretary (Health) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-1. 2. Director of Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, Kasumpti, Shimla- 9. 3. Chief Engineer, Beas Satluj Link, Bhakra Band Management Board, Sundernagar, Tehsil Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. Respondents Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for direction and a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 19.10.2009 and 6.11.2009 or any other writ, order and direction which may deem fit and proper in the circumstances with prayer as made herein under in the interest of law and justice. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 For the respondents : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for respondents No. 1 and 2. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “i) A Writ in the nature of Certiorari may be issued and thereby quash the impugned office order dated 19.10.2009 and office order dated 6.11.2009 (Annexure- P/5 & P/6). ii) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus may be issued and thereby directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to work at BBMB, Hospital Sundernagar where the petitioner has been adjusted on deputation. iii). That the record pertaining to the case may kindly be summoned from the respondents for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. iv). That the present Civil Writ Petition may kindly be allowed with cost. v). That any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the Petitioner and against the respondents.” 2. Annexure P-5 is the order dated 19.10.2009 which reads as under:- “Office order Smt. Jagdamba Devi, Staff Nurse presently on deputation to BBMB Hospital Sundernagar (Mandi) ordered vide this Directorate office order of even 3 number dated 17.9.2009 is hereby repatriated to her parental Department with immediate effect. Sd/-. Director of Health Services, Himachal Pradesh.” 3. Annexure P-6 is the office order dated 6.11.2009 whereby petitioner stands relieved from the BBMB Hospital, Sundernagar. 4. Facts are not in dispute. Petitioner is a Government employee. She belongs to State cadre and holds a transferable post. Undisputedly she belongs to Mandi and since the year 1993 she has been posted in and around the place of her residence. She was transferred to Nahan but later on sent on deputation to B.B.M.B. Hospital at Sundernagar. Now in terms of Annexure P-5 she has been asked to join back in her parent department. 5. Respondents have explained the circumstances under which such order has been passed. There is paucity of staff in Government hospitals and also her services, for administrative reasons and in the interest of patients is better required in the parent department. There is nothing wrong with the decision taken by the Government in this regard. 6. It is urged that other persons are also on deputation at B.B.M.B. Hospital at Sundernagar for the last 5 – 6 years. Placement and posting of an employee is the sole prerogative of an employer. Whom to post where is to be looked into by the employer. If the employer has thought it fit to utilize the services of the petitioner somewhere else, that wisdom unless exercise thereof is arbitrary or 4 illegal, cannot be subject matter of scrutiny by the Court. In the instant case it cannot be said that action is arbitrary or malafide. It shall be open for the respondents to consider repatriation of such persons if their services are better required somewhere else. 7. Consequently, present petition devoid of any merit is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. December 26 , 2011 (PK)