High CourtsSingle Bench

Gopal Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 26 July 2012 · Citation: (2012) 07 SHI CK 0011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjay Karol, J
CASE NUMBER
CWP No. 11038 of 2011-D
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 327 words

Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge

1.

On 30.5.2011, petitioner Gopal Singh, Deputy Ranger, on special duty, was transferred from Nankhari Range Rampur Forest Division to Kuthar Block, Kuthar Range, Kunihar Forest Division against a vacant post. He joined at Kuthar on 3.6.2011. Thereafter on 12.8.2011, in terms of impugned office order (Annexure P-3), he was transferred from Kuthar to Dharampur Block, Baddi Range, Nalagarh Division. Record reveals that there is no public interest in uprooting the petitioner from Kuthar within a short span of two months. In fact, the impugned order of transfer does not even record the fact that such transfer is in fact in public interest. Apparently, there is no justifiable reason for transferring the petitioner from Kuthar, except for that private respondent Rajinder Kumar was to be accommodated at the said place. Noticeably in the last five years, petitioner has been transferred on five occasions and posted at different places through out the State and certainly not his home district. It is true that ordinarily Courts are loath in interfering in an order of transfer, but then where Courts find such actions of the respondents-State to be absolutely arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustifiable interference is warranted. In the instant case, I find the action of the State to be so. It is not the case of the respondents-State that posting of the petitioner at Kuthar is against public interest or otherwise undesirable or not in the interest of administration of justice. Unless administrative exigencies so warrant, petitioner shall be allowed to complete his normal tenure at the place of his posting. Accordingly, impugned order of transfer (Annexure P-3) qua the petitioner is quashed.

2.

With regard to the placement and posting of respondent No.4, it shall be open for the authorities to take appropriate action, including allowing the said respondent to continue to officiate at his original place of posting. With these observations, present writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application, if any.