Anup Kumar vs State Of HP And Others

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

Aggrieved by the order of transfer, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for grant of the following substantive reliefs:

“(i) that the impugned Annexure P-1, notification dated 9th September, 2022, issued by respondent No.1 may kindly be quashed and set aside;

(ii) that the respondent No.1 may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner to discharge his duties as Assistant Professor (Music Vocal) at Govt. College Dhami, till the completion of his normal tenure.”

2 One of the main thrust of the petitioner in assailing the order of transfer is that the same has been effected solely on the basis of D.O. note in order to favour the private respondent. However, the record, that was produced pursuant to the direction to this effect, goes to reveal that the petitioner himself, at an earlier occasion, is beneficiary of the D.O. Note. Therefore, in such circumstances, he is not entitled to any relief in terms of the numerous judgments rendered by this Court.

3 Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 1387 of 2021, titled as Parveen Kumar vs. State of H. P. and Ors., decided on 31.03.2021, wherein it was observed as under:-

“13. Indeed, transfer is an incidence of service and government employees are supposed to be transferred and posted anywhere in the State. The transfers of the petitioner and that of respondent No. 4 are effected after the approval of the competent authority. The petitioner, earlier managed his posting at GSSS Nabahi, Mandi, and now he has been transferred from Nabahi, after completion of his normal tenure, so he has no right to say that transfer of respondent No. 4, effected on the basis of D.O. Note, is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. In fact, transfer of the petitioner has no tinge of malafides, neither without public interest nor vitiated, being against the settled Transfer Policy, as transfer is an incidence of service. Moreover in Sanjeev Sood vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, CWP No. 4208 of 2020, decided on 22.12.2020, this Court has held as under: “9. This Court in CWP No. 4063 of 2019, titled Smt. Anita Rana and Anr vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 31.12.2019, has specifically held that a recipient /beneficiary of DO note cannot approach this Court ventilating the grievance that he /she has been transferred on the basis of DO Note. It would be apposite to refer to the relevant observations made by a Coordinate Bench in order dated 31.12.2019, which reads as under:-

“We have heard this matter for some time and also perused the record produced by the office of respondent No. 2. It is seen from the record that on the D.O. Note, the transfer of petitioner No. 1 has been proposed to be cancelled. Meaning thereby that she is also recipient of D.O. Note, hence not justified in ventilating the grievances that she has been transferred on the basis of D.O. note. Therefore, the writ petition qua her deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to her to make a representation either for cancellation of her transfer or adjustment at some suitable place, if so advised.”

4 The petitioner cannot have two different standards and to say the least, the conduct of the petitioner is deplorable. The people, who lose faith in the judiciary, are required to be condemned and curbed with strong hands by one and all, who are interested in the orderly society and have faith in democracy. This is the basic creed of our Constitution.

5 There cannot be a second opinion that the institution of judiciary took time immemorial to establish. Its functionaries, working independently without favour and fear within the parameters established by law, tradition, usages, customs etc., have earned faith of the public for the institution of being trusted.

6 People's faith in independence of judiciary is of paramount consideration not only in public interest, but also in the interest of society. To protect the faith of the people in the independence of the judiciary developed, established, accepted by a consistent tradition from time immemorial, is the avowed duty of every one of us, especially of Lawyers, Judges, Legislators and the Executives.

7 Faith in judiciary are the facets of the judicial administration to which they contributed substantially. It is essential to maintain faith of common masses in the judiciary, failing which it would lose its respect and esteem. Law is meant to meet the ends of justice.

8 Having resorted to extra constitutional methods for quashing of order of transfer, the Courts have no room for litigants like the petitioner, who have no faith in the judiciary.

9 In view of the aforesaid discussions, we find no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also pending application(s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.