Isha Chauhan vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:-

“(i) That impugned office order 08.05.2021 whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be transferred from Govt. Sr. Sec. School Kanaid, District

Mandi to Govt. Sr. Sec. School Khangiyara, District Mandi, H.P. may very kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to discharge her duties at the present place of posting i.e. Govt. Sr. Sec. School

Kanaid, District Mandi, H.P. in the interest of justice.

One of the main thrust of the petitioner’s challenging the order of transfer is that the same has been effected on the basis of D.O. note in order

to favour the third respondent. However, the record reveals otherwise. The petitioner was transferred to Govt. Sr. Sec. School Kanaid from Govt. Sr.

Sec. School Nihari, Mandi on the basis of D.O. No. 12729, dated 27.02.2018.

Once the petitioner is the beneficiary of the D.O. note herself, therefore, in the given circumstances, she is not entitled to any relief in terms of the

repeated judgments rendered by this Court.

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 31.03.202 1, 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.â€​

Since it is apparent that the petitioner, on earlier occasions, got himself posted at stations of choice on the basis of UO Notes, petition praying

therein for quashment of impugned order is not maintainable at all. However, having taken note of the fact that both, petitioner and respondent No.3,

have been repeatedly exerting political pressure to get themselves posted at stations of their choice, we dispose of this petition by directing

respondents to transfer both, petitioner and respondent No.3, to some other places in the State, especially where both of them have not served till date,

within two weeks.â€​

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also pending application(s), if any.

Parties are left to bear their own costs.