JUDGMENT :

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. The writ petitioner, through the instant writ petition, impugns Annexure P-1, where through, he has been transferred from Kullu, as DM, FWD, Kullu to Kinnaur, as DFO, Kinnaur. Annexure P-3 was made, within less than two years expiring, since the making, of, Annexure P-1, and, where through, he became transferred from the post of DFO Kinnaur, to the post of DM, FWD, Rampur. Resultantly, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that the right, of, completion, of, a tenure of three years, as DFO, Kinnaur, has become denied, to the petitioner, despite, the relevant norm(s), hence encapsulated in the apposite policy, making enshrinements, rather forbidding the employer to, before expiry of three years, of, the officers/officials concerned, at the stations concerned, hence make an order, of, transfer upon him. However, the vigor of the afore espousal becomes deadened, through a perusal, becoming made, of, clause 10, of, the guiding principles, as become formulated, for regulating the transfer(s), of, Public Officers/officials, clause whereof, becomes extracted hereinafter:

“10. The Government can transfer any Officer/Official at any time irrespective of stay, in view of administrative exigency, in the public interest. However, normally the tenure/stay of an Officer/Official at one station shall be three years which will not be applicable to the Officer of IAS/HPAS/HPPS/HPFS, other allied services and all Class I and II Officers”

Inasmuch as, reading(s), of, the afore extracted relevant clause, of, the apposite policy, makes trite underlinings, that, the normal stint, of, any Public Officer/official, at the station concerned, shall be three years, and, thereafter only the employer becoming mandatorily injuncted, given the imparting(s), of, a mandatory parlance, to, the phrase, “shall”, occurring therein, to, post him/her elsewhere (i) whereupon, the shortening, of the stint, of, three years, of, the petitioner, as DFO, Kinnaur, hence through the impugned transfer order, may become invalidated, (ii) however, since it also becomes prescribed therein, that the afore prescription, does become waned, upon the apposite authority, upon existence, of, administrative exigency(s), or, in public interest, deeming it fit, to, curtail the afore stint, or, tenure, of, three years, of any Public Officer/Official, at the station(s) concerned.

2. Besides, when the afore clause is, also, enshrined to be inapplicable, to all officers belonging , to, IAS/HPAS/HPPS/HPFS, other allied services, and, is also made inapplicable, to, all Class I and II Officers, and, importantly, when the petitioner, is, uncontrovertedly, an Officer, belonging to the Himachal Pradesh Forest Services, (a) thereupon, merely upon his tenure, of, three years, as DFO Kinnaur, becoming shortened, through the making(s), of, the afore made transfer order, he cannot hold any valid grudge, against the impugned transfer order.

3. Moreover, since it is also un-repulsedly contended, on an affidavit, hence sworn by a responsible functionary, qua the State/competent authority, also meteing its approval thereto, thereupon, the vigor of any oral espousal, addressed before this Court, by the learned counsel, for the petitioner, that it is made without any approval being granted thereto, by the competent authority, becomes completely unfounded. In summa, the, afore made submissions become mis-founded.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, has also drawn the attention of this Court, to Annexure R-7, Annexure whereof, is, a complaint addressed against the writ petitioner, by the addressee thereof, to, the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Himachal Pradesh, wherein imputations, are made, against the writ petitioner, vis-à-vis, his in breach, of the apposite norms and guidelines, rather awarding works, to, certain underserving aspirants. He further argues, that since the afore complaint, is, contended in the reply/affidavit, furnished, to, the CWP, by the respondent, t