Government employee transfers invalid if based on recommendations from private persons unconnected to department; must stem from administrative exigency or public interest; such orders quashed despite past similar benefits.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Petitioner, who is working as a Sr. Project Officer, HIMURJA, Kangra at Dharamshala, is aggrieved by office order dated 15.11.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred to HIMURJA office Chamba, without TTA/Joining time. The petitioner claims that the transfer has been effectuated on the basis of UO Note No. CM-E-1302/2022-DEP-B-221181 dated 15.11.2025 issued from the office of Hon'ble Chief Minister, which itself has been actuated at the behest of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is stated to be Proprietor M/s Himalayan Techno Government Contractor. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 was awarded Design, Engineering, Supply and Commissioning of 500 kw capacity Solar Power projects to be installed at three sites namely Sera in Hamirpur, Muhal in Kangra and Jol in Bilaspur. Petitioner claims that respondent No.2 did not complete the projects in question in time, for which petitioner and the Department sent reminders and it is for this reason that he (respondent No.2) used his political connections and got issued transfer order. Besides, this petitioner claims violation of Comprehensive Guiding Principles, qua tenure of posting, medical grounds and distance between his native place and the station to which he has been transferred.

2. During the pendency of the case, petitioner applied for information under Right to Information Act, 2005 and by way of CMP No. 30682 of 2025, placed on record copy of UO note, as mentioned above and a letter written by respondent No.2 to Hon'ble Chief Minister, thereby seeking transfer of petitioner to Chamba.

3. Respondent No.1 has filed reply, stating two facts viz. (1), petitioner himself has remained a beneficiary of UO notes in the past and got himself adjusted at convenient stations on his choice and (2), after issuance of impugned office order, petitioner represented to the respondent and only claimed removal of condition that no TTA/Joining Time shall be allowed to him, which as per the respondent No.1, has been redressed vide order dated 17.11.2025.

4. No notice was issued to respondent No.2.

5. Before adverting to the controversy, it may be taken note that respondent No.2 is neither an elected representative of people nor is an officer in the Department, but strangely, he has made recommendation for transfer of the petitioner, which has been accepted by the respondent Department, resulting in issuance of impugned office order.

6. Though, it is settled law that a recipient /beneficiary of DO Note at an earlier occasion cannot approach court for ventilating grievance that he /she has been transferred on the basis of DO Note ( Arun Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh CWP No. 2040 of 2020, decided on 4.11.2020), but at the same time, Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the Division Benches and the Coordinate Benches of this Court have time and again deprecated the practice of making transfers on the basis of written recommendations given by a person not connected with the affairs of the Department and also by the elected representatives, who have no role in transferring an employee by even recommending the posting or transfer. It is the prerogative of the employer to post/transfer its employees and anyone outside the line or hierarchy of the department/ employer has no role in posting/transfers of employees.

7. The issue of interference by elected representatives or persons not connected with the affairs of respondent-State, in matters of transfer of an employee, has been dealt by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Special Leave to Appeal (C) 2177 of 2014, titled