IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.
Bhupender Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others - Respondents
CWP No. 1403 of 2024
Decided On : 25-04-2024
Transfer - Administrative Law - Himachal Pradesh and Horticulture Produce Marketing Development and Regulations Act, 2005 - Regulations, 2006 - [Annexure P2, Annexure P3] - The court quashed and set aside the impugned transfer order dated 27.02.2024 and directed the petitioner to continue to serve as Secretary, APMC, Una for a normal period.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Secretary at Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Una, Himachal Pradesh, challenged a transfer order, alleging that it was made to adjust a private respondent on the basis of a D.O. Note obtained from a former M.L.A. The petitioner sought to quash the transfer order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the private respondent was appointed on secondment basis by displacing a regularly serving and qualified Secretary, without evidence of being trained as Secretary of the Market Committee. The court concluded that the impugned transfer order was passed to adjust the private respondent, and not on account of administrative exigency or public interest.
Issues: The issues involved the eligibility of the private respondent for the post of Secretary, APMC, Una, and the validity of the transfer order in light of administrative exigency and public interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned transfer order was quashed and set aside due to the appointment of an ineligible person on secondment basis by displacing a regular incumbent, without evidence of public interest or administrative exigency.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the impugned transfer order dated 27.02.2024 and directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to serve as Secretary, APMC, Una for a normal period.
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
By way of this Writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:
“(a) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued thereby quashing and setting aside impugned transfer order dated 27.02.2024 (Annexure P1), qua the petitioner.
(b) That, a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondent No.1 to allow the petitioner to continue working as Secretary, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Una, Himachal Pradesh.”
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Secretary, APMC Bilaspur on the recommendation of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission on 22.02.2010. The post is a ClassI (Gazetted). He served at district Bilaspur for three years. He was transferred to district Una on 10.04.2013 and he served there till 03.05.2016. On 04.05.2016, he was transferred to district Mandi and served there till 19.04.2021. On 30.04.2021, the petitioner was transferred to Una and in terms of the impugned transfer order (Annexure P1) dated 27.02.2024, the petitioner has been transferred to APMC, Paonta Sahib and the private respondent has been transferred as posted as Secretary, APMC Una, in place of the petitioner on secondment basis, ignoring the fact that neither the term of the petitioner at the said station is complete, nor respondent No.3 was eligible to hold the post of Secretary of an APMC, in terms of the Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Staff, Regulations, 2006, that have been framed for the employees of Himachal Pradesh State Agricultural Marketing Board under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh and Horticulture Produce Marketing Development and Regulations Act, 2005. It is also the case of the petitioner that the impugned transfer order has neither been passed on account of any administrate exigency nor on account of any pubic interest, but to adjust the private respondent on the basis of a D.O. Note, which has been obtained by the private respondent from a former M.L.A. Accordingly, the petitioner has prayed that the petition be allowed and the impugned transfer order be quashed and set aside.
3. Respondent No.3 despite service has chosen not to contest the petition. Accordingly, the said respondent is proceeded against ex parte.
4. Reply to the petition has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. The stand of the respondent-Board is that it is incorrect that the private respondent is not eligible to hold the post of Secretary, APMC as she fulfills the qualifications and experience to hold the said post. It is also the stand of the Board that the private respondent has been placed against the post on secondment basis and this has been done in public interest and for larger administrative convenience. It is also the case of the Board that there is no indivisible right vested in the petitioner to remain posted at a station of his choice.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the pleadings and documents appended therewith.
6. In terms of the averments made in the petition which have been not been denied, the private respondent was initially appointed as an Agriculture Development Officer and she was transferred to Una on 28.08.2018. On promotion, she was transferred to Development Block, Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P. in the month of October, 2023 as a Subject Matter Specialist, but in terms of the impugned order she has been able to manage her transfer back to Una and that too against the post of Secretary, APMC, Una. These averments have not been contradicted by the respondents except the fact that the transfer of the private respondent is in public interest.
7. There are on record appended with the petition as Annexure P2, the Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Staff of the respondent-Board (Annexure P3), as amended from time to time. In terms of these Regulations, the post of Secretary is filled 80% by w
AI
The central legal point established in the judgment is that administrative decisions, such as transfer orders, must be made in public interest or due to administrative exigency, and the appointment o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer of a government employee should be made in public interest and for administrative reasons, and frequent transfers without justifi....
Transfers should be made based on genuine public interest and administrative exigencies, and not on extraneous considerations or recommendations of elected representatives.
A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place and is liable to be transferred from one place to another, and the court should not interfere with a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of transfer and posting should be exercised honestly, bona fide, and reasonably, based on administrative exigency and public interes....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.