Sureshwar Thakur, J. -
(1.)Writ petitioner, through Annexure P-1, was transferred from Development Block, Karsog to Development Block, Balh. Also, through the afore Annexure, respondent No. 3 was transferred from Development Block, Balh to Development Block, Karsog. Both the afore transfers were made, on, 21.3.2018, and without TTA, and, joining time. However, through Annexure P-3, issued in the month of July, 2020, respondent No. 3, was transferred from Development Block Chauntra, District Mandi, to, Development Block Balh, District Mandi, and also therethrough(s), the writ petitioner was transferred from Development Block, Balh, District Mandi to Development Block, Chauntra, District Mandi. The challenge to the impugned transfer order, borne in Annexure P-3, is, grooved in its breaching, the transfer policy, hence prescribing a normal stay, of, any government employee, at a particular station, upto three years, (i) and, whereas the transfer(s) of, the writ petitioner, as made through, the, impugned orders, occurring in less than three years, of, his completing the afore prescribed tenure, at, the earlier station, thereupon palpable breaches qua the transfer policy, hence, surging forth. Moreover, it is also contended in the writ petition, that, the transfer of the petitioner was made on the basis of a DO note, and was also made merely to adjust the respondent No. 3, hence, the apposite canons, of, administrative necessity and administrative exigency, becoming infringed, besides nor also any public servant, becoming subserved, through the making of, the transfer impugned transfer order, rather concomitantly, it is, stained with vice, of, malafides, and, warrants interference.
(2.)Respondents No. 1 and 2, in their reply meted, to, the writ petition, contended that throughout the service, of, the writ petitioner, under the respondents, hence spanning over a period of 12 years, his despite, belonging to the State Cadre, rather remained posted at Mandi,. Moreover, it is also contended in the reply, furnished, to, the writ petition, by the respondents No. 1 and 2, qua with Annexure R-4, embodying therein, the, relevant instructions, rather conferring powers, upon, the Minister-in-Charge, to, curtail, through according relaxation(s), and, concessions, vis-a-vis, the afore prime condition(s), of normal stay, of, a public servant, at a particular station, being upto three years, upon, existence(s), of, valid factor(s), only appertaining, to, (a) short stay (b) short distance, (i) hence the afore power, as becomes exercisable, on anvil of the afore conditions, also requiring the approval of the Chief Minister. Thereupon, it becomes contended, on a sworn affidavit, that the afore curtailment(s), of, the normal stay, of, the writ petitioner, at Balh, has occured, on account, of, the afore valid discretion(s), becoming aptly exercised, and, appertaining to valid relaxation(s) becoming exercised, by, the afore competent authorities. Since, no challenge, vis-a-vis, the validity, of, the afore instructions, has been cast, (ii) thereupon, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner becomes disabled to contend, that, there is any absolute indefeasible right rather inhering in the writ petitioner, to foreclose any right(s), of, the respondents to, before expiry, of, three years, of posting of, a, public servant at any station, to make any apposite order, of, his/her transfer therefrom, and that too, to, merely adjust respondent No. 3.
(3.)The further effect thereof, is, that if there, is, a DO note, if any, as emanating from any political functionary, and, it also becomes accepted by the Minister-in-Charge, and also, the Chief Minister, hence upon the afore valid discretion, vested upon him/them, through Annexure R-2, (i) thereupon, the afore power of relaxation, embodied in Annexure R-2, on becoming contended to, on an affidavit, to, become validly exercised, hence in tandem therewith, (ii) thereupon, the impugned transfer orders, cannot be construed to be ingrained with any vice, of, any gross malafides nor it can be inferred that in the making, of, the impugned transfer orders, the respondents perpetrated, any discriminatoriness and arbitrariness, upon the petitioner. Strengthened vigor to the afore, becomes garnered from the uncontroverted factum, of, the writ petitioner, as aforestated, despite his belonging to the State Cadre, his, enjoying the facility, of, his remaining posted, in, district Mandi, for about 12 years. Further more, since as apparent on a reading, of the reply, to, the writ petitioner, as furnished by respondent No. 3, that, the writ petitioner has also availed the facility, of, the DO note, thereupon the writ petitioner, is, amenable to beget, an inference from this Court, that, he too had, through exercising political influence, had curtailed the normal period, of, his stay at, the earstwhile station, (iii) whereupon he, is, estopped to contend that equity, is, loaded, in his favour, in his making a challenge upon the impugned transfer order, on ground of it, emanating, on, a DO note, ground whereof, for reasons aforestated, is, invalidly founded.