Rajesh Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Petitioner joined his duties at Government Primary School, Kiana on 19.12.2008. He worked at Government Primary School, Kiana upto 7.6.2010. He was transferred from Government Primary School, Kiana to Government Primary School, Jakhu on 8.6.2010. Petitioner now has been transferred from Government Primary School, Jakhu to Government Primary School, Madhog vide office order dated 26.4.2012. Mr. B.C. Negi has strenuously argued that the petitioner has not been permitted to complete normal tenure of three years at Government Primary School, Jakhu. He has also argued that the petitioner has undergone foundation course from Bhopal and selected as Block Special Educator as per Annexure P-2. He has further argued that petitioner has been transferred to accommodate respondent No. 5, who was transferred from Government Primary School, Kaithu to Government Primary School, Madhog.

Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar have supported the transfer order dated 26.4.2012. According to them, petitioner remained posted within the radius of 25 KMs from Shimla and, thus, has completed normal tenure of three years under Shimla Complex.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parries and have gone through the pleadings meticulously.

Petitioner joined at Government Primary School, Kiana on 19.12.2008. The distance between Government Primary School, Kiana and Government Primary School, Jakhu, though as per the petitioner is more than 26 KMs, but there is sufficient material placed on record by respondent No. 5 that the distance is less than 25 KMs. Since the petitioner has remained posted within the radius of 25 KMs from Shimla, he has been transferred to Government Primary School, Madhog on 26.4.2012 by clubbing his tenure at Government Primary School, Kiana and Government Primary School, Jakhu.

As far as the plea raised by Mr. B.C. Negi that his client has been appointed as Special Educator as per Annexure P-2 is concerned, one Ms. Kalpana Thakur has already been appointed as Special Educator in Government Primary School, Jakhu on 25.4.2012. She has joined her duties on 26.4.2012. It is made clear that the persons who are appointed as Special Educator have no indefeasible right to remain posted at a particular place. It has come on the record that there are as many as seven Special Educators selected for Education Block Shimla and it is for the Education Department where a Special Educator is to be posted.

Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar has also drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure R-5/A whereby certain guidelines have been issued for the identification of schools under "Shimla Complex" for the purpose of transfer/adjustment of Primary Teachers in or around Shimla dated 2.11.2002. The guidelines are rational. It is provided in the guidelines that the Primary Schools situated on the National /State Highway/ Link Roads and nearby, which are approachable by regular public transport or for which bus facilities are available and fail within the radius/distance of 25 KMs from Shimla Bus Stand are to be considered within the Shimla Complex for the purpose of transfer/adjustment and the stay on these stations has to'' be counted as stay in Shimla. The guidelines dated 2.11.2002 are reasonable and the underline principle is that teachers do not remain posted in and around a particular place. In the instant case, as discussed hereinabove, since the petitioner remained posted within the radius of 25 KMs from Shimla, there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the transfer order.

It is settled law that the scope of scope of judicial review in these matters is very limited. The Court can intervene only when the transfer has been made in infraction of any statutory rule or the same is actuated with mala fides. Petitioner has not alleged any specific mala fide except making bald assertion that the transfer has been made to accommodate respondent No. 5. The transfer policy framed by the State Government is not statutory. These are merely guidelines. Petitioner has failed to substantiate that the guidelines are statutory in nature. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.