Jasjit Kaur vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Satyen Vaidya, J

Heard.

By way of instant petition, petitioner has taken exception to her transfer notified vide office order dated 12. 05.2022 (Annexure P-3), whereby petitioner has been ordered to be transferred from Govt. Primary School, Dhundiara, Education Block, Banikhet to Govt. Primary School, Manglera, Education Block, Sundla, District Chamba, H.P.

Petitioner has assailed the impugned transfer order (Annexure P-3) on the grounds firstly that the same has been passed on the political influence of respondent No.4, secondly that the transfer order has been issued on the basis of D.O. Note bearing No. 397227 dated 04.05.2022 and lastly that the transfer order has been passed during the ban period imposed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh.

As per averments made in the petition, petitioner was posted at the present place of posting in May, 2007, i.e. 07.05.2007. Thus, petitioner has already completed her normal tenure at Government Primary School, Dhundiara, Education Block, Banikhet, District Chamba, H.P.

A Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2624 of 2020 titled Shabnam vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 18.09.2020, has held as under:

“A Junior Basic Teacher, has come up before this Court against her transfer from Government Primary School, Brahman Behad to Government Primary School, Sajwad, vide impugned order dated 21.7.2020.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It remains undisputed that prior to the present transfer, petitioner had served in the previous station for more than three years i.e. w.e.f. 9.2.2017. The Transfer Policy also provides that a normal tenure at a station would be three years. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has been transferred on a D.O. Note issued by the fourth respondent, who is a MLA. Once, the employee has completed her normal tenure, it is none of her concern that on what basis the transfer order came into effect.”

Thus, the petitioner cannot have any grievance regarding her transfer on the basis of D.O. Note, when she has already completed her normal tenure of posting at Government Primary School, Dhundiara, Education Block, Banikhet, District Chamba, H.P.

Petitioner has further submitted that she has been transferred despite imposition of ban on transfers by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. This again cannot be a ground to challenge the transfer order before this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner has failed to plead and prove malafide or malice in accordance with law.

In S.K. Nausad Rahaman and others vs. Union of India and others, Civil Appeal No. 1243 of 2022, decided on 10th March, 2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: -

“24. While analyzing the rival submissions, certain basic precepts of service jurisprudence must be borne in mind.

First and foremost, transfer in an All India Service is an incident of service. Whether, and if so where, an employee should be posted are matters which are governed by the exigencies of service. An employee has no fundamental right or, for that matter, a vested right to claim a transfer or posting of their choice.

Second, executive instructions and administrative directions concerning transfers and postings do not confer an indefeasible right to claim a transfer or posting. Individual convenience of persons who are employed in the service is subject to the overarching needs of the administration.”

In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, the petitioner cannot have any grievance against her transfer despite imposition of ban as such orders are mere executive/ administrative directions and will not confer an indefeasible right in favour of petitioner.

In light of the above discussion, petition is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.