Point of Law: First and foremost, transfer in an All India Service is an incident of service. Whether, and if so where, an employee should be posted are matters which are governed by the exigencies of service. An employee has no fundamental right or, for that matter, a vested right to claim a transfer or posting of their choice.

ORDER :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for grant of following reliefs :-

“i. Issue a writ of certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned transfer dated 20.01.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by Respondent.

ii. Issue a writ mandamus directing the Respondents not to implement the transfer order dated 20.01.2022.”

2. Petitioner has laid challenge to transfer order dated 20.02.2022, Annexure P-2, on the grounds, firstly that his transfer is result of D.O. Note and secondly, petitioner is suffering with multiple diseases and has been medically advised not to travel long distance. Lastly, it is also contended that the transfer order of petitioner has been issued despite the ban imposed by the government.

3. In response, the respondents have justified their administrative action on the grounds that the petitioner has completed his normal tenure at Government Middle School Majhakhal, under complex GSSS Janjehli, District Mandi and his transfer was approved by the competent authority. Petitioner belongs to cadre of Trained Graduate Teacher which is a State Cadre Post, therefore, petitioner is liable to be transferred anywhere in the State.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through records.

5. A perusal of contents of petition filed by the petitioner reveal that on his initial appointment on 21.02.2012, petitioner was posted at Government Middle School Sodhadhar under complex GSSS Janjehli, District Mandi, H.P. He was transferred from Government Middle School Sodhadhar to Government Middle School Majhakhal, on 26.11.2016 and noticeably the school to which he was transferred also was under complex GSSS Janjehli (Mandi). Thus, it is evident that petitioner since his initial posting is posted almost in the same area i.e. under complex GSS Janjehli, Mandi.

6. Though, the petitioner has alleged that his transfer has been effect on a D.O. Note, but neither the petitioner has provided any details of the author of D.O. Note nor any malafide has been alleged. Needless to say that the petitioner has not even chosen to implead the author of D.O. Note as a party.

7. Since, the petitioner has been transferred after five years from Government Middle School, Majhakhal under complex GSSS Janjehli (Mandi) and practically after almost 10 years from the same area as noticed above, petitioner neither has any right nor is justified in taking exception to his transfer on the basis of D.O. Note. A Division bench of this Court in CWP No. 2624 of 2020, titled as Shabnam vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 18th September, 2020 has held as under:-

“2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It remains undisputed that prior to the present transfer, petitioner had served in the previous station for more than three years i.e. w.e.f. 9.2.2017. The Transfer Policy also provides that a normal tenure at a station would be three years. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has been transferred on a D.O. Note issued by the fourth respondent, who is a MLA. Once, the employee has completed her normal tenure, it is none of her concern that on what basis the transfer order came into effect.”

8. Petitioner, in support of his case has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court ( in which one of us Satyen Vaidya, J. was a member), on 10.09.2021 in CWP No. 2573 of 2021, titled as Pradeep Kumar vs. The State Electricity Board Ltd. & Another. In our considered view, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner cannot help his case, for the reason that the said judgment was passed in its own peculiar facts, which are not available in the instant case. In the case of Pradeep Kumar (supra), the incumbent i.e. petitioner therein had been transferred after almost two years and had not completed his normal tenure. Further, the transfer in the said case was on recommendation of an extra constitutional authority that too purely on political grounds. In the bac