2025:HHC:18157 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 9634 of 2025 Decided on: 11th June, 2025 ___________________________________________________________ Pooja Rana ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and anr. …..Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General for respondents-State. Ranjan Sharma, Judge Heard. Notice. Mr. Arsh Rattan, learned Deputy Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2-State. 2. Petitioner, Pooja Rana, has come up before this Court, seeking the following relief(s):- (i). That the impugned transfer order dated 6.6.2025 contained in Annexure P-2 is liable to be quashed and set aside qua the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:18157 2 petitioner in view of the reason mentioned herein above; (ii) That the respondents may further be directed to allow the petitioner to be continue at the present place of posting keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that he is a Staff Nurse and since 2014, he remained posted in Civil Hospital, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. The stay and incumbency of petitioner is not in dispute. It is averred that the Respondent No.2-Director of Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, has issued an order dated 6.6.2025 [Annexure P-2] transferring the petitioner from Civil Hospital, Palampur, District Kangra, to Civil Hospital, Bharmour, District Chamba. 4. It is averred in para 5 of the petition that husband of the petitioner is serving in Indian Army and is posted at Udhampur in Jammu and Kashmir. In this backdrop, the petitioner, being the wife of an official in Armed Forces-Military, deserves to be posted at a convenient place, subject to vacancy, in terms of Clause 5.2 of the Transfer Policy. On instructions, it 2025:HHC:18157 3 is averred that the petitioner does not intend to stay at Civil Hospital, Palampur and she has pointed out the vacancies [in para 6, i.e., ZH Dharamshala, CH Thural, District Kangra and CH Chadiyar], and her case for adjustment deserves to be considered against such vacancies so as to give effect to Clause 5.2 of the Transfer Policy. 5. For redressal, the petitioner has made a representation on 9.6.2025 [Annexure P-5], which is stated to be pending. 6. At this stage, Learned Counsel for the petitioner on Instructions states that petitioner shall be satisfied, in case, Respondent No.2-Director of Health Services is directed to examine/consider her representation in the light of Clause 5.2 of Transfer Policy against any of the above vacancies [Statement Taken on Record]. 7. The statement made in Para 6 supra, being innocuous, is not opposed by Learned State Counsel, except that Impugned Orders, have been passed, in pursuance to the directions dated 28.05.2025 passed in CWP 2025:HHC:18157 4 No. 8378 of 2025, In re: Dr. Janak Raj versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 8. In rebuttal, Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the directions passed on 28.05.2025 in case of Dr. Janak Raj [CWP No. 8378 of 2025] neither permits nor mandates the State Authorities to resort to pick and choose method, so as to act dehors the provisions of Clause 5.2 of the policy, which was contended to be discriminatory, arbitrary, perverse by ignoring the relevant aspects. 9. At this stage, this Court is constrained to observe that the norms governing transfers are to be uniformly and equally applied to all concerned, without discrimination, Respondent-State cannot be permitted to resort to pick and choose criteria, dehors the object intent of Clause 5.2 of Transfer Policy. In these circumstances, this Court observes, that the directions passed in the case of Janak Raj [Annexure P-3] supra have been misread by the State Authorities, which, nowhere permits or mandates the State Authorities to resort to transfer(s) dehors Clause 5.2 of Transfer 2025:HHC:18157 5 Policy or to defeat the intent/object thereof by resorting to pick and choose and discriminatory application of norms, which ex-facie reveals malice-in-law, arbitrariness in State action. 8. Without commenting further and after taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances, this Court disposes of the instant petition, at this stage, in the following terms: (i). State Authorities, including Respondent No.2 Director of Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, is directed to consider/examine the representation dated 9.6.2025 [Annexure P-5 colly] in the light of Clause 5.2 of Transfer Policy; and then to pass appropriate orders in the light of Clause 5.2 in accordance with law; after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner; on or before 21.06.2025; (ii). Till the decision of representation, the operation of Impugned Transfer Orders dated 6.6.2025 [Annexure P-2] transferring the petitioner from Civil Hospital, Palampur [Kangra] to Civil Hospital Bharmour, [Chamba], shall remain stayed, qua the petitioner; 2025:HHC:18157 6 (iii) State Authorities, including Respondent No.2 shall permit the petitioner to work as Staff Nurse, at CH Palampur, [Kangra], as aforesaid. (iv) No order as to costs. In aforesaid terms, the writ petition and all pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of, accordingly. (Ranjan Sharma) Vacation Judge 11th June, 2025 (mamta/tm)