Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16716 (HP)

Sanjay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2026-02-25

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2026
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. Reply stands filed by respondents No.1 and 2. No reply is intended to be filed by respondents No.3 and 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no rejoinder is intended to be to the reply filed by respondents No.1 and 2. 2. Heard. By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed impugned transfer order dated 09.12.2025, in terms whereof, the petitioner has been transferred from SMS (Horticulture), Rampur (Rampur, Nankhari Blocks), District Shimla, to SMS (Horticulture) Dodra Kwar, District Shimla, in place of respondent Shri Kushal Singh. 3. Learned  Counsel  for  the  petitioner  argued  that  the impugned transfer order is per se bad, for the reason that the petitioner was transferred to Rampur from Rohru seven months prior to the issuance of the impugned transfer order. Learned Counsel further submitted that before his transfer to Rampur, the petitioner had served at Rohru for a normal tenure of three years and, therefore, he was expecting that he shall be allowed a reasonable tenure at Rampur, but by virtue of the impugned transfer order, he has again been disturbed just after seven months and that too, without any justifiable reason. Learned Counsel also argued that the impugned transfer order is nothing, but an act of coularable exercise of power, which is evident from the fact that the private respondents have been transferred without TTA, meaning thereby that they have been transferred on their request. He, thus, submitted that it is not a transfer which is either on account of any administrative exigency or in public interest, but is an arbitrary exercise of power and, accordingly, he prayed that the impugned transfer order be set aside. He further submitted that the impugned transfer otherwise is a result of D.O. Note. 4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General argued that transfer of the petitioner was effected in public interest with the approval of the Competent Authority, in condonation of a short stay. He also argued that the petitioner being a Class-I employee, is not protected by the Transfer Policy and it is not as if there is any guarantee of a tenure of three years, as is being proclaimed by the petitioner. Accordingly, he argued that as the transfer order was passed in public interest and on account of administrative exigency, the same does not calls for any interference. 5. Accordingly, he argued that as the transfer order was passed in public interest and on account of administrative exigency, the same does not calls for any interference. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents has adopted the arguments addressed by learned Deputy Advocate General. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as also learned Deputy Advocate General and learned Counsel for the private respondents and have also carefully gone through the petition as well as reply and the documents appended therewith. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was transferred to Rampur just seven months prior to the issuance of the impugned transfer order, in terms whereof, he has been transferred from his present place of posting to SMS (Horticulture), Dodra Kwar, which besides being a difficult area, is also at a distance of about about 200 kilometers from his present place of posting. It is also not in dispute that before his transfer to Rampur, the petitioner was serving at Rohru and distance between Rohru and Rampur is about 100 kilometers. Though, it is the stand of the State that transfer of the petitioner is in public interest and is in condonation of a short stay with the approval of the Competent Authority, but what that public interest is, has not been spelled out either in the reply or the transfer order. On the other hand, a perusal of the impugned notification demonstrates that out of three incumbents, who have been transferred in terms of said transfer order, two have been transferred without any TTA or joining time, whereas the petitioner has been transferred with TTA or joining time. This, ex facie, demonstrates that the impugned transfer order is at the behest of these individuals and that is why they have not been given any TTA or joining time. 8. In these circumstances, the contention of the State that the transfer has been effected on account of administrative exigency and public interest cannot be accepted, because obviously the transfer order has been passed to accommodate the private respondents on their requests and it is not on account of any administrative exigency of the Department or public interest viz-a-viz the Department. Incidently, it is also not the stand of the respondents that after the transfer of the petitioner to Rampur, he indulged in the activities which warranted his transfer from Rampur. Incidently, it is also not the stand of the respondents that after the transfer of the petitioner to Rampur, he indulged in the activities which warranted his transfer from Rampur. Though, the petitioner is a Class-I employee and may be as per the Transfer Policy of the State Government, he does not enjoys the benefit of a normal tenure of three to five years at a station, yet whenever an incumbent, may be a Class-I employee, is transferred to a place, ordinarily there is a legitimate expectation that such an incumbent shall be allowed to continue to serve at a station for some reasonable time, except in exceptional cases. By no stretch of imagination, stay of seven months can be treated to be a reasonable time, more so, in the facts and circumstances of the present case wherein the impugned transfer order has been passed just to accommodate the private respondents, which apparently makes it an act of colourable exercise of power. 9. The Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in E.P. Royappa Versus State of Tamilnadu and another, AIR 1974, Supreme Court 555, has been pleased to hold that a public servant can complain of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, if he has been arbitrarily or unfairly treated or subjected to mala fide exercise of power by the State machinery. Hon’ble Supreme Court also held in the said judgment that equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies, one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other to the whim and caprice of the absolute monarch. Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14, and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 16. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require that State action must be based on valid relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require that State action must be based on valid relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality. Where the operative reason for State action, as distinguished from motive inducing from the antechamber of the mind, is not legitimate and relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of permissible considerations, it would amount to mala fide exercise of power and that is hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Mala fide exercise of Power and arbitrariness are different lethal radiations emanating from the same vice; in fact the matter comprehends the former. Both are inhibited by Articles 14 and 16. 10. In the present case, as obviously the transfer of the petitioner stands actuated by extrusions consideration, i.e. to adjust the private respondents rather than any administrative exigency or public interest, the impugned act is hit by both Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 11. In light of the above observations, the petition is allowed and the impugned transfer order dated 09.12.2025 (Annexure PA) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to serve at Rampur, District Shimla, for reasonable time. 12. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.