Jai Prakash vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

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

"(i) That the impugned order of transfer dated 15.07.2020 (Annexure P­1) and order dated 28.09.2020 (Annexure P­5) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the transfer/adjustment of the petitioner at GPS Shogi Chhakarwag in Education Block Narag where the JBT post is lying vacant or in the alternative at GPS Kujji Education Block Narag where the JBT post is also lying vacant.

(iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner."

It is not in dispute that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing CWP No.2486/2020, which was disposed of by this Court on 20th July, 2020 (Annexure P­3), by passing following order:­

"Admittedly, the petitioner has completed his normal tenure of service at one station and, therefore, is liable to be transferred. 2.Consequently, we find no merit in the instant application and the same is dismissed accordingly. However, it would be open to the respondents to consider and decide the request made by the petitioner for his transfer/adjustment against a vacancy as mentioned in Annexure P­3, within a period of two weeks from today."

Even at that stage, the Court did not deem it proper to interfere and rather dismissed the aforesaid petition filed by the petitioner. The only liberty granted by this Court to the petitioner was to approach the respondents. Considering his request for transfer/adjustment against a vacancy as mentioned in Annexure P­3 with that petition.

It is more than settled that in the matters of posting and transfer, it is the employer, who is the best judge. Petitioner instead of placing on record the rejection order has placed before this Court the office order dated 28.09.2020, whereby he has been directed to join his place of posting i.e. GPS Kalog, E/B Shillai, consequent upon rejection of his representation.

In all fairness, the petitioner should have placed before us the rejection order. That apart successive petitions have been filed by the petitioner, which are otherwise not maintainable, particularly, where at the first instance, we were not inclined to entertain the petition. Liberty that was granted by this Court has been grossly misused by the petitioner and such conduct cannot be encouraged and needs to be deprecated.

Accordingly, we find no merit in this petition and consequently the same is dismissed in limine. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.