Back
2020 Supreme(HP) 774
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Sandeep Sharma, JJ.
Sanjeev Sood - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 4208 of 2020
Decided On : 22-12-2020
Sunita Sharma, Advocate, Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate, Ashok Sharma, Advocate, Vikas Rathore, Advocate, Vinod Thakur, Advocate, Yudhvir Singh Thakur, Advocate, Bhupender Thakur, Advocate, Seema Sharma, Advocate, Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that administrative exigency and public interest are crucial factors in transfer decisions, and mere political recommendations are not sufficient to effect a transfer.
Headnote:
Transfer - Violation of Transfer Policy - Sanction of Transfer on the basis of DO Note - Administrative Exigency and Public Interest - Political Pressure - [TRANSFER] - [VIOLATION OF TRANSFER POLICY] - [HP PWD Division Baijnath, QC & D, office of Chief Engineer, Mandi] - The court discussed the violation of transfer policy and the sanction of transfer on the basis of a DO Note. It highlighted the importance of administrative exigency and public interest in transfer decisions and emphasized that mere political recommendations are not sufficient to effect a transfer. The court also noted the petitioner's history of using political pressure to secure postings, leading to a directive to transfer both the petitioner and respondent No.3 to new locations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of transfer issued by the respondent State, citing violation of Transfer Policy and political interference in the transfer process. The petitioner had a history of using political pressure to secure postings of choice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer was sanctioned on the basis of a DO Note from a public representative, but emphasized the need for administrative exigency and public interest in transfer decisions. It also noted the petitioner's history of using political pressure to secure postings.
Issues: Violation of Transfer Policy, Administrative Exigency, Public Interest, Political Pressure
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that mere political recommendations are not sufficient to effect a transfer and highlighted the importance of administrative exigency and public interest in transfer decisions. It also noted the petitioner's history of using political pressure to secure postings.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to transfer both the petitioner and respondent No.3 to new locations within two weeks, considering their history of using political pressure to secure postings.
JUDGMENT
Sandeep Sharma, J. - Being aggrieved by order of transfer, dated 30.9.2020, issued by respondent State transferring the petitioner from HP PWD Division Baijnath to QC & D, office of Chief Engineer, Mandi, the petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings praying therein for following reliefs:
"A. That the writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing the order dated 30.09.2020 which has been issued in violation of Transfer Policy and law laid down by this Hon'ble High Court as well as apex court Transfer on E.O. note from the office of Hon'ble Chief Minister and without assigning any reason and to adjust respondent No. 3 on the basis of D.O. note from the local M.L.A especially when he has not competed his normal tenure, there is no other grounds for transferring the petitioner except just to adjust the respondent No.3.
B. That the respondent may be directed to adhere the condition of transfer policy and the petitioner may be allowed to continue at the present place of posting till her completion of normal tenure.
2. Pleadings adduced on record by respective parties, clearly reveal that the petitioner after being appointed as a Junior Engineer, in the year 1989, remained posted mostly in Kangra District save except for three postings out of District Kangra at Kullu, Sirmaur and Dalhousie (Chamba). Barring for nine years, petitioner remained posted in and around his home Division Palampur. Petitioner, who had been working as Executive Engineer, HP PWD Baijnath from 23.2.2018 came to be transferred to the office of QC & D, Chief Engineer, Mandi and as such, approached this Court in the instant proceedings, primarily on two grounds, (1) he has not been allowed to complete his normal tenure of three years and (2) he has been transferred on the basis of DO Note procured by respondent No.3.
3. Reply filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 though clearly reveals that the petitioner came to be transferred on the basis of a DO Note issued by Shri Mulakh Raj, MLA, Baijnath Constituency, whereby, he, while recommending transfer of the petitioner from Baijnath requested for posting of respondent No.3 at Baijnath, but the reply filed on behalf of the respondents further reveals that the petitioner, prior to his transfer in question, was transferred to PWD Division Dalhousie on 5.2.2018, from HP PWD Division Jawali, where he was working with effect from 15.2.2016, but he, with the help and aid of two UO Notes, got himself adjusted at Baijnath on 23.2.2018. UO Notes, on the basis of which petitioner was adjusted as Executive Engineer Baijnath, stand annexed as Annexures R-I and R-II with the reply filed by the respondents. In the aforesaid background, learned Advocate General and counsel for respondent No.3 vehemently argued that no relief, if any, can be claimed by the petitioner on the ground that his transfer has been effected on the basis of DO Note issued by respondent No. 4.
4. This Court, with a view to ascertain factum with regard to DO and UO Notes issued in favour of petitioner and respondent No.3, also summoned record, perusal whereof clearly reveals that both, petitioner and respondent No.3, who are holding senior positions in the Public Works Department, had been repeatedly using their political connections to get themselves adjusted at the stations of their choice. This Court in Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others,2013 LatestHLJ 1051 (HP), had not only deprecated such practice but had quashed the transfer made on the basis of DO Note.
5. It is quite apparent from aforesaid exposition of law that request, if any made by public representative, per se, may not constitute an unauthorized or unwarranted interference or cause vitiation, provided that consequent steps are taken by administrative authority alone. Mere recommendation, if any, by public representative, is not sufficient to effect transfer, rather, there has to be application of mind by the authority while con
