IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.2102 of 2024 Decided on 21st May 2026 Sushma Verma …Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh University …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioner: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Tejasvi Dogra, Advocate. For the respondent: Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i. That the impugned posting orders dated 19.02.2024 (Annexure P-4) may be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. Ii. That the respondent-University may be directed to post the petitioner against the post sanctioned for her category or at a place commensurate to her status and with her consent.” 2. The petitioner, who is serving as a Senior Private Secretary is aggrieved by an office order, dated 19.02.2024, in terms whereof, he has been ordered to be posted from the office of Chief Warden Office to Construction Division. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the office order 2 under challenge is arbitrary and discriminatory. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that Annexure P-5 is the sanctioned strength and staff in position in respect of personal staff and the adjustment of the petitioner in terms of the impugned order is in violation thereof. Learned Senior Counsel argued that the petitioner, who is posted as a Senior Private Secretary, has to be posted in terms of the staff in position mentioned in Annexure P-5 and her status cannot be derogated by posting her in the Construction Division, whereas there is no post of Senior Private Secretary. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the petitioner is being called upon to perform the duties of a Junior Stenographer in the Construction Division, which is self-speaking from the fact that there is no post of Senior Private Secretary in the Construction Division. Learned Senior Counsel also argued that the petitioner has been posted in the Construction Division just to humiliate her, which is evident from the fact that she is being made to serve under an Assistant Engineer, who enjoys the same pay scale as the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.K. Chinnasamy versus Government of Tamil Nadu and others, (1987) 4 Supreme 3 Court Cases 601, wherein, Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that a Public Officer should be given posting and work which commensurate with the status of the said Public Officer. Learned Senior Counsel argued that the action of the respondents is not only contrary to Annexure P-5, but also against the settled position of law, as declared by the Hon’ble Supreme. Learned Senior Counsel has also referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tejshree Ghag and others versus Prakash Parashuram Patil and others (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 220, in which, the same legal position has been reiterated. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the University submitted that the posting of an employee is the prerogative of the University and the petitioner has been posted within the main campus of the University. Learned counsel also submitted that the posting of the petitioner was done taking into consideration the exigencies of service of the University and it is not for the petitioner to dictate where she has to be posted. Learned counsel submitted that the administrative exigency of the University has determined the place of posting of the petitioner and thus, the present petition is not maintainable. 4 Learned counsel also submitted that as far as the Construction Division is concerned, the Executive Engineer happens to be the Senior-most Officer in the said Division. Learned counsel also submitted that it was incorrect that the pay scale of the petitioner was equivalent to that of the Executive Engineer. She submitted that, whereas, the pay scale of the petitioner is 15,600-39,100+6600/- as grade pay that of the Executive Engineer is 15,600-39,100+7600 grade pay. 4. Countering it by way of rejoinder, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the next promotional post from the post of Senior Private Secretary is that of Special Private Secretary and the pay scale of the said promotional post is much more than the post of the Executive Engineer. 5. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the University and have also carefully gone through the pleadings and documents appended therewith. 6. The moot issue for the adjudication of this case is as to whether the respondent-University can post the petitioner in a Division or office or Branch of the University, where, the post against which the petitioner is working is not available? 5 7. In terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to hereinabove which stands relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, a Public Officer should be given posting as also work which commensurate with the status of the Public Office. 8. Obviously, when an employee is holding a particular post, the employer is expected to post such an employee at a place where said post is available. 9. In fact, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tejshree Ghag and others versus Prakash Parashuram Patil and others (supra) has observed that if orders of transfer substantially affect the status of an employee, then the same would be violative of the conditions of service and, thus, illegal. 10. In the present case, a perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that the petitioner, who is working as a Senior Private Secretary stands posted in the Construction Division. A perusal of Annexure P-5, which reflects the sanctioned strength and staffing position in respect of personal staff as far as the University is concerned does not demonstrates that in the Construction Division, there is any post of Senior Private Secretary. 6 11. That being the case, obviously, the posting/transfer of the petitioner from the office of Chief Warden to Construction Division is bad and not sustainable in law. Though this Court, obviously, cannot dictate as to where the services of the petitioner have to be utilized by the University, but it goes without saying that the petitioner can only be posted at a place where the post of Senior Private Secretary is available. 12. In the present case, as the same has not been done, therefore, the present petition is allowed. Annexure P-4 qua the petitioner is quashed and set aside. Liberty is granted to the respondent-University to post the petitioner in any of its Divisions etc., but against the post which is being held by her. 13. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 21, 2026 (Vinod)