Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, SUSHIL KUKREJA, JJ.
Chaman Lal - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. - Respondents
CWP No. 2636 of 2023
Decided On : 19-05-2023
Employee - Order of transfer - Petitioner approached Court being aggrieved by his transfer within a span of about two years, on basis of U.O. Note, but without due application of mind by concerned authority of administrative department - All proposed transfers were approved as it is, without even consulting administrative authority - Para 4.
Finding of the Court :
It is more than settled that an elected representative can only propose transfer of an employee, that too for genuine and cogent reasons and not by usurping authority of administrative department, who alone is competent to issue orders of transfer after due application of mind - Obviously, administrative department in such circumstances, had no choice whatsoever, but to implement recommendations made by local MLA as approved aforesaid - Court is left with no other option except quashing of impugned transfer order and accordingly impugned order is quashed.
Result : Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by his transfer within a span of about two years, on the basis of U.O. Note, but without due application of mind by the concerned authority of the administrative department.
2. Learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record instructions imparted by Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, vide communication dated 18.05.2023, wherein, it has been stated as under :
Therefore, a proposal was send to higher authorities on file and the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister was obtained.”
3. For adjudication of present case, reference can be conveniently made to various pronouncements of this Court, including Ram Krishan vs. District Education Officer, reported in ILR HP 1979 HIM 481 : 1979 Shim LC 345; A.K. Vasudeva vs. State of H.P. and others, reported in ILR (Himachal Series) (1981) 10 HIM 359; 1982 Shim LC 104; CWP No.1105 of 2006, titled as Sushila Sharma vs. State of H.P. and others; Sant Ram Pant vs. State of H.P. and others, reported in 2009 (3) Shim. L.C. 206; CWP No.2844 of 2010, titled as Pratap Singh Chauhan vs. State of H.P. & others reported in 2010(3) Shim.LC 379, decided on 18.06.2011; CWP No.3530 of 2011, titled as Babita Thakur vs. State of H.P. and others reported in 2011(2) Shim.LC 28; Amir Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in 2013 (2) HLR (DB) 648; Sanjay Kumar vs. State of H.P. and Ors., reported in Latest HLJ 2013 (HP) 1051; Raj Kumar vs. State of H.P. and Ors., reported in 2015 (1) Him. L.R. (DB) 567; CWP No.2621 of 2020, titled as Lekh Raj vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 17.08.2020 : 2020 SCC Online HP 3429; CWP No.511 of 2020, titled as Sheela Suryavanshi vs. Stae of H.P., decided on 26.8.2020; CWP No.2677 of 2020, titled as Shugal Singh vs. State of H.P., decided on 24.9.2020; CWP No.2211 of 2020, titled as Sudhir Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 29.9.2020; CWP No.5294 of 2020, titled as Abdul Hamid vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 5.1.2021 : 2021 SCC Online HP 48: 2021 Lab IC (NOC 215) 65; CWP No.1387 of 2021, titled as Praveen Kumar vs. State of H.P and others, decided on 31.3.20221; CWP No.2862 of 2021, titled as Vipender Kalta vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 20.7.2021; and CWP No.5721 of 2021, titled as Promila vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 8.10.2021. Following principles propounded in above referred pronouncements may be relevant for the purpose of adjudication of present petition :
(b) Interference from outsiders in day-to-day administration of the State is not warranted and in case such interference is allowed, it would only mean that the Government servants should run after those who are taking part in public life and in politics for getting better terms of service and a better place of posting and should do everything to please them and not to please the department by their ability, honesty and integrity and such interference is highly detrimental to the public interest as it would result in nepotism and corruption wherein only those who can wield influence and purse, can succeed. Therefore, sooner this type of interference is discouraged and stopped, the better for the administration and the people of the State.
(c) An elected representative can only propose the transfer of an employee, that
Point of Law : Public representatives have a right to make recommendations, but these can only be recommendations and cannot be taken to be final word.
Public representatives have a right to make recommendations, but these can only be recommendations and cannot be taken to be final word.
Transfers should be made based on genuine public interest and administrative exigencies, and not on extraneous considerations or recommendations of elected representatives.
Member of Legislative Assembly or Ministers concerned, have right to make recommendations but these recommendations cannot be taken to be final word.
Point of Law : Employment and Service matter - Order of Transfer quashed - Since recommendations to transfer petitioner had been mooted by an extra constitutional authority, who has no role in the fu....
Transfers should be based on public interest and administrative exigencies, and not on extraneous considerations or recommendations from unauthorized persons.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
