( 2025:HHC:43734 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No.838 of 2025 Decided on: 11th December, 2025 Ashutosh Awasthi .......Appellant versus State of H.P and others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S.Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr.Surinder Saklani, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms.Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.Onkar Jairath, Advocate for respondent No.3. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The consideration sought in the present appeal is to the order dated 28.11.2025 passed in CWP No.18067 of 2025 titled as Ashutosh Awasthi vs. State of H.P and others of learned Single Judge by the appellant/writ-petitioner, who was unsuccessful and had challenged his transfer order dated 19.11.2025 (Annexure P-11), whereby he had been transferred as Assistant Mining Inspector, Sub-Division, 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2025:HHC:43734 ) 2 Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. to the office of Mining Office, Solan, H.P. vice Mr.Jag Vishal Rana, respondent No.3. 2. The learned Single Judge on the basis of documents supplied by the State, came to the conclusion that the writ-petitioner had been working at Sujanpur, which is situated in District Hamirpur, H.P. for more than 10 years and 4 months from his initial appointment as Mining Guard on contract basis vide order dated 10.07.2015 and even after regularization, he had been working in the said District as such and, therefore, the learned Single Judge chose not to interfere and vacated the stay order dated 21.11.2025. 3. It has been noticed by the learned Single Judge that the private respondent also has time and again managed his posting at the station of his choice in Sujanpur and directed that respondent No.3 should also not be given posting at Sujanpur, rather he may be posted at some other station. We called upon Mr. Jairath, counsel who represented him before the learned Single Judge as he was present in Court. 4. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was well justified in dismissing the writ petition and also passing the appropriate ( 2025:HHC:43734 ) 3 directions as there is ding dong battle going on between the appellant and the private respondent to secure the posting in District Hamirpur for the reasons best known to them. Since for the administrative exigencies of the State it is open to transfer the employee and it is apparent that the present appellant himself had been continuously staying in District Hamirpur for more than 10 years and four months, which would be clear from the writ record that he was posted at the station of his choice from 16.07.2015 and even on promotion, he had been continuously working in District Hamirpur, H.P. 5. It has also been mentioned in the reply filed by respondent No.3 that the writ-petitioner is also beneficiary of multiple D.O. notes on the earlier occasions, details of which were accordingly given. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was well within his jurisdiction to dismiss the writ petition as it is settled principle that the transfer as such has to be done for the administrative exigency and in the absence of any malafide and arbitrariness, the Writ Court would not interfere. 6. It has also come on record that the writ-petitioner himself had been promoted as Assistant Mining Inspector on ( 2025:HHC:43734 ) 4 30.11.2023 and, therefore, apparently, he also stayed for more than 2 years in District Hamirpur after his promotion and it is time for him to move on and the State has accordingly posted him at Solan. It is only the interest of administration as such that the employee should not have vested interest to stay in a particular district and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the directions as such which have been issued qua the private respondent are also well justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, as both employees apparently are spending more time in getting their transfer orders, rather than working, in the field. 7. Resultantly, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. 8. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) December 11, 2025 Judge (naveen)