Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 7173
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J
Jaswant Rai – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
CWP No.14546 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Naresh Kaul
For the Respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma
Judicial review in transfer matters is limited, and interference is not warranted absent evidence of mala fides, statutory violation, or harm to the employee's interests.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Judicial review in transfer matters - The scope is limited and should be exercised only in cases of mala fides, statutory violation, or detriment to the employee. Transfer of a government servant is primarily a matter for administrative discretion without judicial interference unless specific allegations are substantiated. (Paras 9.1, 10)
(B) Administrative Law - The courts lack expertise for personnel management and should refrain from interfering with transfer orders unless clear grounds are established. (Paras 9.2, 9.5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, serving as a Physical Education Teacher at GSSS Baddi, was aggrieved by his transfer order to GSSS Chandi (A) issued on 05.09.2025, as he believed his service was more required at the current station. He was previously transferred based on a D.O. note which was quashed by another Court.
Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the respondents' discretion in transferring the petitioner, confirming that five years at a given posting warranted a transfer under the principle of administrative discretion.
Issues: Whether the transfer was justified under the law and if there were sufficient grounds for judicial review.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without evidence of mala fides or statutory violation, judicial interference is unwarranted in transfer cases. It enforced the administrative authority's decision-making in transfer matters.
Result: The petition was dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioner's transfer and previous orders. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments against the transfer. (Para 4) |
| 3. court's observation on transfer authority. (Para 5) |
Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1 Whether approved for reptorting?
_________________________________________________________________
For the petitioner: Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate oGeneral.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner is serving as Physical Education Teacher at GSSS Baddi, District Solan, H.P.. He feels aggrieved against office order dated 05.09.2025 (Annexure P-
5), transferring him to GSSS Chandi (A), District Solan, H.P.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.
3. The case
3(i) In terms of para-2 of the writ petition, petitioner was transferred to GSSS Baddi, on 27.11.2020. He is seving
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes at the said station eversince.
3(ii) On 29.08.2023, respondents transferred the petitioner from GSSS Baddi to GHS Sarma, District Solan. Petitioner assailed the said transfer ordeHr in CWP No. 6041 of 2023, primarily on the ground that the same was issued on the basis of a D.O note.
Looking to the record produced by the respondents and the incumbency position of the petitioner, impugned office order dated 29.08.2023 was quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. CWP No.6041 of 2023 was accordingly allowed and disposed of on 13.09.2023 with liberty reserved to the respondents to consider the case of htransfer of petitioner afresh in accordance with law and gapplicable policy as also taking into consideration his incumbency. The judgment reads as under:-
“Heard.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved against office order dated
29.08.2023 (Annexure P-3), which transfers him from GSSS Baddi, District Solan to GHS Sarma, District Solan. The petitioner, who is serving as Physical Education Teacher at GSSS Baddi, District Solan, has assailed the transfer order primarily on the ground that the same was issued merely on the basis of a D.O. note issued by respondent No.4.
3. The respondents have produced the record.
Learned Additional Advocate General has also placed on record copy of instructions memo dated 08.09.2023, giving incumbency position of the petitioner. It was fairly submitted that the transfer of the petitioner was ordered merely on th.e basis of a D.O. note without the Department applying its independent mind to the proposal of petitioner’s transfer mooted at the instance of respondent No.4.
4. On that ground alone, the impugned office order dated 29.08.2023 (Annexure P-3) is quashed and set aside qua the petit ioner. However, it shall be open to respondents No.t1 to 3 to consider the case of transfer of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and applicable policy as also taking into consideration his incumbency.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.”
h3(iii) On 05.09.2025, respondents issued office order gtransferring petitioner from GSSS Baddi to GSSS Chandi (A)
iDistrict Solan without TTA/JT. This ordr has been impugned in the present petition.
4. Consideration Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that number of students at GSSS Baddi is 1376 and service of the petitioner is more required at the present station than at GSSS Chandi (A); The petitioner had not requested for his transfer, yet TTA/JT has not been provided to him. Learned Additional Advocate General has produced the record relating to the petitioner’s transfer. I have pursued the record, wherein, respoHndents have justified their action of transferring the petitioner from present place of posting. It is otherwise also seen that petitioner was posted at the present place on 27.11.2020. He, by now, has completed almost five years at GSSS Baddi, therefore, he liable to be transferred.
At this stage, it would be in place to refer to Sri Pubi Lombi Vs. The State of Arunachal Prade
