IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8398 of 2025 Decided on: 24th July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Jayant Ratna …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Srishti Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner is a Class-I Officer serving in the respondent-Agriculture Department. He has taken exception to the notification dated 17.05.2025 (Annexure P-3), under which he was transferred as District Agriculture Officer from District Mandi to BPM, HPCDP JICA Kullu. Transfer was ordered vice respondent No.4, who was brought in place of the petitioner from HPCDP JICA Kullu. 2. Petitioner has assailed the impugned notification primarily on the grounds that the same was 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 issued on the basis of a D.O. note and that he has not been allowed to complete his normal tenure at Mandi. 3. Respondents No.1 to 3 have filed the reply, giving incumbency position of both the petitioner and respondent No.4. Apart from giving the incumbency position, the reply also states that the petitioner was sponsored by JICA Project, Hamirpur for nine months’ training at Japan during February, 2023. Petitioner completed this training in October, 2023. Entire expenditure on the said training was borne by the Project- JICA. The training was given so that the petitioner could get himself acquainted with the entire project work and functioning of JICA. On account of petitioner’s resuming his duties, he has now been posted at BPM, HPCDP JICA Kullu as he is a trained one, whereas, respondent No.4 is not trained in JICA work. This has been cited as reason for transferring respondent No.4 to Mandi and petitioner to Kullu. Reply also states that the petitioner and respondent No.4 have since joined their duties at their respective transferred stations. The stand taken in the reply reflects the administrative exigency of the employer. 4. In view of nine months’ training imparted to the petitioner at Japan relating to JICA Project, his transfer to 3 BPM, HPCDP JICA at Kullu cannot be faulted. It is for the employer to utilize the services of its employees at appropriate place. Since respondent No.4 is not trained in JICA work, therefore, petitioner’s posting at BPM, HPCDP JICA Kullu does not require any interference. In view of above, I find no merit in the instant writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 24, 2025 Judge Mukesh