No vested right for government employee spouses to same or contiguous postings; administrative exigencies and public interest prevail over couple preferences; significant delay in challenge indicates afterthought.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

Notice. Mr. Rajat Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure P-4, dated 23.08.2025, in terms whereof, representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the Authority concerned, which was filed by the petitioner feeling aggrieved by his transfer from GSSS Kashmaila, District Mandi, H.P. to GSSS Deothi, District Solan, H.P.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that that the rejection of the representation of the petitioner is bad in law, for the reason that the Authorities concerned erred in not appreciating that the case of the petitioner being a couple case he could not have been disturbed from the placed where he was earlier posted. Learned Counsel also argued that as the petitioner has been transferred on a D.O. Note, therefore also, the transfer order is bad in law.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General has taken the Court through the contents of the order passed by the Authority and submitted that the order is self-speaking as to why the representation has been rejected and further in light of the fact that the petitioner was transferred after the completion of normal tenure at Kashila, he cannot make any grievance of his transfer from the said station.

5. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Assistant Advocate General and having perused the order under challenge, this Court is of the considered view that there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the same.

6. First of all, it is not understood as to why the rejection of the representation which took place in the month of August, 2025, was not immediately assailed by the petitioner if he indeed was aggrieved by the same. He chose to file this petition only in the month of February, 2026, which demonstrates that filing of the petition is nothing, but an afterthought.

7. Be that as it may, as it is not in dispute that the petitioner is serving a State Cadre Post and he has now been transferred from Kashmaila, District Mandi, H.P., to GSSS Deothi, District Solan, H.P., the petition is bound to serve at the said station also, as simply because his wife is also an employee of the respondents-Government, this does not confers any indifisible right upon the couple to continue to serve at the station of their choice. In terms of the Transfer Policy of the State, in couple cases the endeavour of the State has to be to ensure that their postings are contiguous, but it is not as if any vested right is conferred upon the couple that the State or the Department is bound to post them at the same or contiguous station. The Department of course has to take into consideration its administrative exigencies as also public interest and the same cannot be sub-servant to the personal interest of the employees. Moreover, nothing stops the wife of the petitioner or the petitioner or both of them to make a joint representation to the Authority that in light of the transfer of the petitioner to GSSS Deothi, District Solan, H.P., the wife of the petitioner be either posted at the same station or some other station contiguous to it.

8. Accordingly, this petition petition is dismissed without interfering with the impugned order, but with the observation that the rejection of this petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner or his wife in approaching the Authority for their being posted at a place nearby to the place of posting of them. The Court is making this observation, for the reason that during the cours