( 2025:HHC:3063 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 23 of 2025 Date of decision: 10.01.2025. Sanjeev Kumar ...Appellant. Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Addl. A.G., for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (oral): The challenge is made in this appeal to order dated 30.12.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 8045 of 2024, wherein the impugned order dated 6.8.2024 (Annexure P-2) was quashed and the Writ Petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to continue to serve at her place of posting in Forest Block, Una. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 2. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that there are violation as such of the transfer policy in as much as for being posted in home district and there is specific bar under Clause 3 wherein some power of relaxation has been given as such with the prior approval of the Chief Minister through the Minister in-charge of the department concerned. It was accordingly that the transfer was held to be without any basis, while referring that the rational of the policy is that to avoid any case of favoritism or nepotism or undue pressure on officers/officials and the provisions of the transfer policy cannot be relaxed just to accommodate someone simply because the highest authority has the discretion to exercise the power of relaxation. The said order was quashed, leaving the writ petitioner to continue to serve at the place of posting for a normal tenure of three years. 3. We have also noted from the paper book of the writ petition that the writ petitioner had got such posting vide order dated 28.6.2024 (Annexure P-1), at Una where she was posted for a period of less than two months before being moved out, which is also arbitrary as such. 4. Nothing is mentioned in the impugned order as to how the public interest would serve by transferring the -3- official immediately after a period of two months. The State has also not filed any appeal to defend its action. In such circumstances, we feel that the learned Single Judge is justified in passing the impugned order. 5. Resultantly, we find no ground to interfere in the impugned order and the appeal is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 10th January, 2025 (kck)