JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Petitioner, who is working as a Sr. Project Officer, HIMURJA, Kangra at Dharamshala, is aggrieved by office order dated 15.11.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred to HIMURJA office Chamba, without TTA/Joining time. The petitioner claims that the transfer has been effectuated on the basis of UO Note No. CM-E-1302/2022-DEP-B-221181 dated 15.11.2025 issued from the office of Hon'ble Chief Minister, which itself has been actuated at the behest of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is stated to be Proprietor M/s Himalayan Techno Government Contractor. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 was awarded Design, Engineering, Supply and Commissioning of 500 kw capacity Solar Power projects to be installed at three sites namely Sera in Hamirpur, Muhal in Kangra and Jol in Bilaspur. Petitioner claims that respondent No.2 did not complete the projects in question in time, for which petitioner and the Department sent reminders and it is for this reason that he (respondent No.2) used his political connections and got issued transfer order. Besides, this petitioner claims violation of Comprehensive Guiding Principles, qua tenure of posting, medical grounds and distance between his native place and the station to which he has been transferred. 2. During the pendency of the case, petitioner applied for information under Right to Information Act, 2005 and by way of CMP No. 30682 of 2025, placed on record copy of UO note, as mentioned above and a letter written by respondent No.2 to Hon'ble Chief Minister, thereby seeking transfer of petitioner to Chamba. 3. Respondent No.1 has filed reply, stating two facts viz. (1), petitioner himself has remained a beneficiary of UO notes in the past and got himself adjusted at convenient stations on his choice and (2), after issuance of impugned office order, petitioner represented to the respondent and only claimed removal of condition that no TTA/Joining Time shall be allowed to him, which as per the respondent No.1, has been redressed vide order dated 17.11.2025. 4. No notice was issued to respondent No.2. 5. Before adverting to the controversy, it may be taken note that respondent No.2 is neither an elected representative of people nor is an officer in the Department, but strangely, he has made recommendation for transfer of the petitioner, which has been accepted by the respondent Department, resulting in issuance of impugned office order. 6. 5. Before adverting to the controversy, it may be taken note that respondent No.2 is neither an elected representative of people nor is an officer in the Department, but strangely, he has made recommendation for transfer of the petitioner, which has been accepted by the respondent Department, resulting in issuance of impugned office order. 6. Though, it is settled law that a recipient /beneficiary of DO Note at an earlier occasion cannot approach court for ventilating grievance that he /she has been transferred on the basis of DO Note ( Arun Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh CWP No. 2040 of 2020, decided on 4.11.2020), but at the same time, Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the Division Benches and the Coordinate Benches of this Court have time and again deprecated the practice of making transfers on the basis of written recommendations given by a person not connected with the affairs of the Department and also by the elected representatives, who have no role in transferring an employee by even recommending the posting or transfer. It is the prerogative of the employer to post/transfer its employees and anyone outside the line or hierarchy of the department/ employer has no role in posting/transfers of employees. 7. The issue of interference by elected representatives or persons not connected with the affairs of respondent-State, in matters of transfer of an employee, has been dealt by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Special Leave to Appeal (C) 2177 of 2014, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Tara Devi, decided on 19.01.2015, relevant paras whereof read as under:- "Learned senior counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends, that the High Court erred in striking down Clause 17 of the transfer policy. Clause 17 of the transfer policy referred to in the impugned order of the High Court, is extracted hereunder:- "17. On request from public representatives at all levels, on administrative exigencies and in the public interest, transfer shall be considered by the competent authority." Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further contends, that the aforesaid paragraph of the transfer policy was struck down in view of the observations recorded by the High court in CWP NO. On request from public representatives at all levels, on administrative exigencies and in the public interest, transfer shall be considered by the competent authority." Learned senior counsel for the petitioners further contends, that the aforesaid paragraph of the transfer policy was struck down in view of the observations recorded by the High court in CWP NO. 801 of 2013-A, titled Sanjay Kumar vs. State of H.P. and Others as well as in CWP No. 5351 of 2012, titled Amir Chand vs. State of H.P. Relevant extracts referred to by the High Court from Amir Chand's case is being reproduced hereunder: "4. Coming to the issue of political patronage. On the basis of the judgments cited hereinabove, there can be no manner of doubt that the elected representatives do have a right to complain about the working of an official, but once such a complaint is made, then it must be sent to the head of the administrative department, who should verify the complaint and if the complaint is found to be true, then alone can the employee be transferred. 5. We are, however, of the view that the elected representative cannot have a right to claim that a particular employee should be posted at a particular station. The choice has to be made by the administrative head, i.e. the Executive and not by the legislators. Where an employee is to be posted must be decided by the administration. It is for the officers to show their independence by ensuring that they do not order transfers merely on the asking of an MLA or Minister. They can always send back a proposal showing why the same cannot be accepted. 6. We, therefore, direct that whenever any transfer is ordered not by the departments, but on the recommendations of a Minister or MLA, then before ordering the transfer, views of the administrative department must be ascertain. Only after ascertaining the views of the administrative department, the transfer may be ordered if approved by the administrative departments. 7. No transfer should be ordered at the behest of party workers or others who have no connection either with the legislature or the executive. These persons have no right to recommend that an employee should be posted at a particular case. 7. No transfer should be ordered at the behest of party workers or others who have no connection either with the legislature or the executive. These persons have no right to recommend that an employee should be posted at a particular case. In case they want to complain about the functioning of the employee then the complaint must be made to the Minister In charge and/or the Head of the Department. Only after the complaint is verified should action be taken. We, however, reiterate that no transfer should be made at the behest of party workers." It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, that a perusal of Clause 17 clearly reveals, that the norms depicted in Amir Chand's case (in paragraphs 4 to 7) were duly incorporated in Clause 17 of the transfer policy. We agree with the submission advanced by learned senior counsel for the petitioners, and therefore, hereby set aside the direction of the High Court in quashing Clause 17 of the transfer policy. It is, however, directed that Clause 17 of the transfer policy should for all intents and purposes be read as was expressed in paragraphs 4 to 7 of the judgment rendered in Amir Chand's case supra.” 8. Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 985 of 2023, titled as Mukesh Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh , decided on 13.06.2023, in similar situation, set aside the transfer ordered on the basis of a DO Note issued by an extra constitutional authority. The operative part of the judgment reads as under:- "2. A perusal of the record, which was produced pursuant to directions of this Court, goes to indicate that the transfer of the petitioner has been effected solely on the basis of DO Note, that too, issued by an extra constitutional authority. Therefore, in such circumstances, the impugned order of transfer cannot sustain, more particularly for the reasons, as al- ready assigned by the Court in case titled Vipender Kalta vs. State of H.P. and others, 2021 (3) SLC 1462. 3. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the order of transfer dated 4.3.2023 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and set aside." 9. Therefore, in such circumstances, the impugned order of transfer cannot sustain, more particularly for the reasons, as al- ready assigned by the Court in case titled Vipender Kalta vs. State of H.P. and others, 2021 (3) SLC 1462. 3. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the order of transfer dated 4.3.2023 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and set aside." 9. Similarly, in CWP No. 1748 of 2023 titled as Ravi Bhandari v. State of Himachal Pradesh , decided on 08.05.2023, while dealing with the similar situation the Division Bench of this Court has deprecated the practice of making transfers on the recommendation of elected representative and the relevant part of the judgment reads as under:- "2. Though petitioner has completed his normal tenure at the present place of posting but grievance of petitioner is that he has been transferred on the basis of UO Note No. Sr.PS/Agri. & AH Min./2023-523 dated 10th March, 2023 initiated on the basis of recommendation of Lo- cal Public Representative who is also Cabinet Minister. 3. Record has been produced which indicates that Local MLA, who also happens to be a Minister, had given proposal of transfer of 12 employees/teachers including the petitioner that transfer of petitioner be approved to a far-flung area of Kinnaur/Sirmour Districts on administrative grounds. 4. In furtherance to aforesaid request, Hon'ble the Chief Minister has approved the transfer communicating the same to the Director of Edu- cation as under:- "Sh. Ravi Bhandari (Biology) may be transferred in condonation of short stay less than one/two years, from GSSS Jawali (Kangra) to far flung area of Kinnaur/Sirmour Distt. on administrative grounds, in relaxation of contract transfer Policy & in supersession of all Previous orders, in relaxation of ban on transfers. Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-1 is re- quested to take necessary action accordingly and report compliance." 5. It is evident from the record that transfer has been ordered by the department without application of mind, but acting on the basis of recommendations made by a person, who has no role in functioning and business of Administrative Department. In the present case, the very basis for issuing impugned transfer is in conflict with various pronouncements of the Courts including the Supreme Court. 10. It is for the employer to see where the Government servant is to be posted. However, there should be no arbitrariness in the action. In the present case, the very basis for issuing impugned transfer is in conflict with various pronouncements of the Courts including the Supreme Court. 10. It is for the employer to see where the Government servant is to be posted. However, there should be no arbitrariness in the action. The transfer cannot be used as an instrument to accommodate/adjust the persons without there being any administrative exigency. The underlying principle for transfer should be public interest or administrative exigency. 11. Otherwise also, practice of effecting transfers on political interference has been long deprecated by Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court and there are number of verdicts on this point. Otherwise also, respondents in their reply have not denied that the transfer has not been issued on the basis of DO Note, rather, their simpliciter reply is that petitioner himself was a beneficiary of DO Note and that he filed representation on- ly to allow TTA/Joining Time, but since the petitioner is before this Hon'ble Court agitating his transfer, this court can infer that the petition- er is aggrieved by his transfer and his only contention is that he has not himself prayed for his transfer. 12. Looking into the manner, in which transfer has been effected i.e. on the basis of a communication sent by an awardee of the project, who is neither a constitutional authority nor a public representative nor having any connection with the working of HIMURJA coupled with the fact that petitioner has worked at present place only for two years and a few months, this Court is inclined to intervene. 13. Besides this, it is pleaded by the petitioner that he has suffered paralytic attack in December, 2013 and is getting medication for hyper- tension and undergoing prostate related medical issues coupled with the fact that petitioner is 55 years of age, as such, not fit to be posted at a distant place like Chamba, as such, this court is of the view that interest of justice would be met, in case the impugned office order is quashed and set aside. 14. In view of the detailed discussion made above and law taken note of, impugned office order dated 15.11.2025 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent to transfer the petitioner in accordance with law and keeping in view public interest or administrative exigency. 14. In view of the detailed discussion made above and law taken note of, impugned office order dated 15.11.2025 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent to transfer the petitioner in accordance with law and keeping in view public interest or administrative exigency. The petition stands disposed of in afore terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Interim direction, if any, is vacated.