Guman Singh vs State of H.P. and Others

Justice V.K. Sharma

The petitioner, who is serving in the respondent-Department as Deputy Ranger, was transferred from Kotla Block to Renuka Wild Life Zoo vide office order dated 14.1.2010, Annexure P-1. Thereafter, after stay of less than a month, his transfer orders were cancelled vide office order dated 4.2.2010, Annexure P-2. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed CWP No. 385 of 2010 in this Court and the same was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.3.2010 with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file an appropriate representation before the first respondent Consequently, the petitioner submitted representation Annexure P-4 to the second respondent, which has been rejected by respondent No. 1 vide order dated September 9, 2010, Annexure P-5, on the ground that the petitioner could not have been posted in Renuka which is his Home Range. With regard to the policy of the State Government not to post officials in the home range, the petitioner has set up the following averments vide para 10 of the petition:-

That moreover the respondents have a number of other persons serving their home range namely Amar Singh, Dy. Ranger, Majri Check Post, Khatri Ram, Dy. Ranger, Home Range Shillai, Deen Dayal Forest Ranger, Trilokpur, Satish Negi, D.F.O. Wild Life Division Sarahan Division and the petitioner has been made an exception in an arbitrary manner just to accommodate respondent No.5. A copy of the order dated 2.2.2010 is annexed herewith as Annexure P-6 for the kind perusal of this Hon''ble Court.

In reply to the above averments on behalf of the petitioner, respondents No. 1 to 4 have stated as under vide para 10 of their reply:-

That the contents of this para are admitted to the extent that Sh. Amar Singh, Dy. Ranger, Majari Check Post has been posted against vacancy in public interest. Sh. Khatari Ram, Dy. Ranger has been working in Milla Block of Shilai Forest Range with effect from 10.8.2006 that is prior to framing the Guidelines Principles for transfers of Himachal Pradesh Government employees vide memo No. Per (AP-B) (7)-1/2008 dated 10.4.2010. Sh. Deen Dayal, Range Forest Officer, Trilokpur has been posted by the competent authority vide office order dated 28.10.2009 in public interest. Sh. Satish Negi, DFO, Wild Life Division, Sarahan has also been posted in Sarahan Wild Life Division by the competent authority in public interest. It is emphatically denied that official has been transferred in an arbitrary manner just to accommodate respondent No. 5 because respondent No. 5 being a class-III official, who is just serving as Dy. Ranger, cannot influence the Head of Department of Govt. of Himachal Pradesh as all the transfer orders of petitioner have been issued with due approval of competent authority.

The petitioner has also brought on record an order dated 2.2.2010, Annexure P-6, passed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Forests) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, perusal whereof would go to show that the rule with regard to ''non-posting in home district/division is only a guideline and not an inflexible rule''. It being so, the same position would apply to posting in home range.

While passing interim stay order dated 25.10.2010, a Division Bench of this Court had recorded the submission of the petitioner that he has been transferred during the mid academic session which affects the education of his children. It was further recorded that if the petitioner is required to be transferred, he is willing for transfer to any place after the academic session. Now since the academic session is nearing completion, such ground is not available to the petitioner.

It is submitted by the petitioner that respondent No. 5, who was posted in Renuke Wild Life Zoo, has since retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and the post is lying vacant.

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction that subject to the petitioner making a representation to respondent No. 2 within 15 days from today, the said respondent shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter in accordance with law within further 15 days by taking into consideration the stand taken by respondents No. 1 to 4 in para 10 of their reply, as noticed hereinabove as also the aforesaid order dated 2.2.2010, Annexure P-6, copy of which shall be furnished to respondent No. 2 by the petitioner alongwith his representation. Needless to say that the present arrangement with regard to the posting of the petitioner shall not be disturbed till disposal of the representation. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any.