Sureshwar Thakur, J. -
(1.)Through, the, extant writ petition, the writ petitioner challenges the impugned transfer order. However, before proceeding to make an adjudication, vis-a-vis, the validity, of, the making of the impugned transfer order, by the respondents, it is of utmost importance, to allude, to the relevant factum, of, the employer of the writ petitioner, being the Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Ltd.
(2.)The afore alluded relevant factum, appertaining to the employer of the writ petitioner hence being the Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Ltd, does draw, the, attention, of, this Court, to, a binding, and, conclusive verdict pronounced, in a case titled, as, Chandresh Kumar Malhotra vs. H.P. State Cooperative Bank and others, 1993 2 ShimLC 243, verdict whereof, become referred by a Division Bench of this Court, in a case titled, as, Vikram Chauhan vs. The Managing Director and others, CWP No. 3634 of 2012-D, along with other connected matters, decided on 14.05.2013, (I) wherein, alike the hereat employer, of, one Chandresh Kumar Malhotra, this Court had expounded a categorical canon, vis-avis, the H.P. State Co-operative Bank being not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court (ii) or it became propounded there, vis-a-vis, the remedy of the aggrieved employee, of, the H.P. State Cooperative Bank, to cast challenge(s), vis-a-vis, and, appertaining, to the realm of service jurisprudence, being not through a writ petition becoming preferred before the High Court. As aforestated, the afore decision, as, made in the afore titled case i.e. Chandresh Kumar Malhotra's case (supra), has remained un-reversed, hence, it has acquired, the, completest binding, and, conclusive force, vis-a-vis, the afore facet. In sequel, since, the writ petitioner is an employee of the H.P. State Co-operative Bank, and, with any employer, under, the tenets of service jurisprudence, holding a leverage, to, during the period of the employee's service, hence make valid orders, rather free from any constitutionally barred vices, hence, of, transfer, upon, him, (iii) besides when there is no valid empowerment in the writ petitioner to obstruct or resist, the afore transfer order, made upon him, by the H.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd, (iv) thereupon, the extant writ petition becomes prima facie not maintainable, and, also estops this Court to embark, upon, making any judicial review, upon, the impugned transfer order.
(3.)Be that as it may, nonetheless, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance, upon, a verdict rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in, a case titled as Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shri Mukta Jeevandasswami Suvarna Jaya vs. V.R. Rudani & others,1989 AIR 1607 decided on 21.04.1989, and, wherein, it has been expostulated, (a) vis-avis, the words "any person or authority" used in Article 226 are not to be confined, only to statutory authorities, and, instrumentalities of the State, (b) rather the connotation borne by them may cover any other person or body hence performing public duty, (c) and, if a positive obligation becomes cast upon any body or entity, thereupon, the jurisdiction of the writ court, to make a mandamus, upon, the apposite body or entity, for, therethrough any positive obligation cast thereon, being ensured to be implemented, rather being, a, constitutionally vindicable recourse, by the High Court, in, the exercise, of, its jurisdiction under Article 226, of, the Constitution of India. (d) The writ of mandamus being not deniable, merely on the ground of public duty to be enforced, being not imposed by, a, statute. (e) The remedy of making, of, a writ of mandamus, being a very wide remedy, which must be easily available to reach injustice whereever it is found. Furthermore, it also becomes expounded therein, vis-a-vis, the law relating to mandamus hence making the most spectacular advances, and, all limitations, of, procedural disadvantages, which earlier became encumbered therein, becoming with passage of time rather more or less overcome.