Raj Kumari vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Satyen Vaidya, J

By way of the instant petition, petitioner has raised challenge to her transfer order dated 12.11.2021 (Annexure P- 1) and also to the rejection order dated 15.2.2022 (Annexure P-4), passed by respondent No.2 on her representation. A further prayer has been made, seeking direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for adjustment in a nearby place, enabling her to take care of her ailing husband.

Petitioner is in second round of litigation by way of instant petition. In the first instance, petitioner had challenged her transfer order dated 12.11.2021 by way of CWP No. 7141 of 2021. A Division Bench of this Court had disposed of the said petition in following terms:-

“3. A perusal of the petition shows that save and except for the individual hardship, no other factual and legal grounds have been taken by the petitioner in this petition to assail the impugned transfer order dated 12.11.2021.

It is more than settled that the courts are extremely slow in directly interfering in the personal hardship cases. The clear implication of the almost consistent directions given in the cases is that the transferee could make a representation to the competent authority. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Roy vs Union Of India and anr. (1993) 1 SCC 148.

Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make a representation, which if made, within a period of one week from today, shall be considered and decided by the respondents within next two weeks thereafter. Till such decision is made by the respondents upon the representation of the petitioner, the petitioner shall not be compelled to join the transferred station. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.”

Perusal of aforesaid order reveals that firstly the Court had refused to grant the prayer of petitioner on merits and secondly, no further liberty was reserved in favour of the petitioner to approach this Court again. In view of this matter, the present petition is not maintainable.

Even otherwise, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will be loath to interfere in any administrative action, unless the same suffers from vice like arbitrariness or malafide etc. Petitioner has not been able to make out any case for interference in the given facts and circumstances. Accordingly, we find no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.