1. Aggrieved by the order of transfer, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for the grant of following reliefs:-
“(i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may very kindly be issued thereby quashing impugned transfer order dated 15.11.2021 (Annexure P-1)
(ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue serving as Lecturer Economics at GSSS Sandhole, District Mandi.
2. Record reveals that the transfer of the petitioner, no doubt, has been effected on the recommendations of the Minister but it is not denied that the Minister concerned also happens to be a local MLA.
3. Therefore, in the given circumstances, the transfer of the petitioner on the recommendations of the Minister/MLA concerned by itself would not vitiate the transfer order. After all, it is the duty of the representatives of the people in the legislature to express the grievances of the people and if there is any complaint against an official, the State Government is certainly within its jurisdiction to transfer such an employee. There can be no hard and fast rule that every transfer at the instance of an MP or MLA would be vitiated. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of an individual case. This was so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Masood Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and others (2007) 8 SCC 150 , wherein it was observed as under:-
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned transfer order of the appellant from Muzaffarnagar to Mawana, District Meerut was made at the instance of an MLA. On the other hand, it has been stated in the counteraffidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 that the appellant has been transferred due to complaints against him. In our opinion, even if the allegation of the appellant is correct that he was transferred on the recommendation of an MLA, that by itself would not violate the transfer order. After all, it is the duty of the representatives of the people in the legislature to express the grievances of the people and if there is any complaint against an official the State Government is certainly within its jurisdiction to transfer such an employee. There can be no hard and fast rule that every transfer at the instance of an MP or MLA would be vitiated. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of an individual case. In the present case, we see no infirmity in the impugned transfer order.”
4. Though a recommendation by a peoples representative requesting for a particular course of action in the realm of administrative functioning may not per se constitute an unauthorized or unwarranted interference or cause vitiation provided the consequential steps are taken by the authority of administration alone, the nature of action then to be drawn by the administrative department would be contingent on the attending facts. It is only when the contextual facts demonstrate servile subjugation of a administrative authority to the dictates of an outside entity in power by meekly abdicating his dominion, the resultant order or decision would be impeachable as antithetical to the foundational precepts of governmental functioning. The facts and circumstances of each case will therefore have to be evaluated.
5. Adverting to the record once again, we find that there is due and proper application of mind by the administrative authority before passing the impugned order of transfer. That apart, record reveals that petitioner had himself pulled political strings by procuring D.O. Note, while seeking his posting at the current station i.e. GSSS Sandhole. Therefore, in such circumstances, he is not entitled to any relief in terms of the repeated judgments rendered by this Court.
6. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 1387 of 2021, titled as Parveen Kumar vs. State of H. P. and Ors., decided on 31.03.2021, wherein it was observed as under:-
“13. Indeed, transfer is an incidence of service and government employees are supposed to be transferred and posted anywhere in the State . The transfers of the petitioner and that of respondent No. 4 are effected after the approval of the competent authority. The petitioner, earlier managed his posting at GSSS Nabahi, Mandi, and now he has been transferred from Nabahi, after completion of his normal tenure, so he has no right to say that transfer of respondent No. 4, effected on the basis of D.O. Note, is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. In fact, transfer of the petitioner has no tinge of malafides, neither without public interest nor vitiated, being against the settled Transfer Policy, as transfer is an incidence of service. Moreover in Sanjeev Sood vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, CWP No. 4208 of 2020, decided on 22.12.2020, this Court has held as under:
“9. This Court in CWP No. 4063 of 2019, titled Smt. Anita Rana and Anr vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 31.12.2019, has specifically held that a recipient /beneficiary of DO note cannot approach this Court ventilating the grievance that he /she has been transferred on the basis of DO Note. It would be apposite to refer to the relevant observations made by a Coordinate Bench in order dated 31.12.2019, which reads as under:-
“We have heard this matter for some time and also perused the record produced by the office of respondent No. 2. It is seen from the record that on the D.O. Note, the transfer of petitioner No. 1 has been proposed to be cancelled. Meaning thereby that she is also recipient of D.O. Note, hence not justified in ventilating the grievances that she has been transferred on the basis of D.O. note. Therefore, the writ petition qua her deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to her to make a representation either for cancellation of her transfer or adjustment at some suitable place, if so advised.”
10. Since it is apparent that the petitioner, on earlier occasions, got himself posted at stations of choice on the basis of UO Notes, petition praying therein for quashment of impugned order is not maintainable at all. However, having taken note of the fact that both, petitioner and respondent No.3, have been repeatedly exerting political pressure to get themselves posted at stations of their choice, we dispose of this petition by directing respondents to transfer both, petitioner and respondent No.3, to some other places in the State, especially where both of them have not served till date, within two weeks.”
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.
