Smt. Nirjala Walia vs State of H.P and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—By means of this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.5.2010, Annexure P/4 whereby the transfer order dated 29.5.2010 qua the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5 was cancelled.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Petitioner was appointed as female health worker on 9.10.1997. She was initially posted in Sub Centre Utpur under Primary Health Centre (PHC), Ladbharol, Tehsil Joginder Nagar, District Mandi. In the year, 2006, she was transferred to Sub Centre, Dinak under PHC Kaneid. Thereafter, on 3.12.2008, the Petitioner was again transferred to Sub Centre, Ropri under Block Ladbharol. On 29.5.2010, the Petitioner was transferred from Sub Centre Ropri to Sub Centre, Chambi District Mandi and the Respondent No. 5 was transferred from Sub Centre, Chambi to Sub Centre, Ropri. Thereafter, the Petitioner was relieved from Sub Centre Ropri but before she could join at Sub Centre, Chambi, the transfer order dated 29.5.2010 was cancelled vide impugned order dated 31.5.2010. Hence the present petition.

The stand of the State is that the Petitioner has stayed in the same two areas for the long time and has only served in two blocks, i.e., Rohanda and Lodbharol. As far as the Respondent No. 5 is concerned, she has also opposed the petition and submits that due to her ill health, she should not be transferred.

The main question which arises in this petition is "Why an order of transfer should be cancelled after a few days". I had summoned the record of the case and after going through the same, I find that the authorities while canceling the order of transfer of Respondent No. 5 and the Petitioner have not taken any administrative or public interest into consideration. The transfers have been cancelled only on the asking of the Minister without even verifying, whether the transfer is required to be cancelled in public interest or not. Public servants cannot be treated in such a manner and, therefore, the order dated 31.5.2010 which is not based on any public interest or administrative exigencies of service is liable to be quashed. It is more than apparent that both the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5 have managed to serve in the same area throughout their service career. It appears that both of them are influential and somehow managed to stay in or around the same area.

As far as the Respondent No. 5 is concerned, she has spent almost 13 years of her service career at Chambi.

In view of the above discussion, I find that the order dated 31.5.2010, Annexure P/4, is not based on any public interest or administrative exigency of service and is liable to be quashed. Therefore, the same is quashed. It is made clear that the Respondents-State can transfer both the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5 to any station. It is not necessary that they are retained in or around the villages where they have managed to stay for the last many years.

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.