2026:HHC:10394 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4527 of 2026 Decided on: 06.04.2026 Manoj Kumar … Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Anshul Jairath, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Anshul Jairath, learned Counsel, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1, 2 and 3, respectively. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the transfer order dated 31.03.2026 (Annexure P/2), in terms whereof, the petitioner who is serving as Joint Controller in the Cadre of HPF&AS, which is a Class-I post, has been transferred from Directorate of Technical Education, Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. to Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority, EPIP Phase-I, Jharmajri, Baddi, H.P. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the transfer is bad, for the reason that it is actuated by malafidies as the petitioner has been transferred on the basis of a D.O. Note obtained by the private respondent and further the petitioner has not been allowed to complete his normal tenure at the present place of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:10394 posting. 4. On the other hand, learned Advocate General as well as learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 have drawn the attention of the Court to the averments made in the writ petition and have submitted that the petitioner, since the month of April, 2015, has been serving within a vicinity of 15 to 20 Kilometers at Mandi, H.P., or nearby stations. Learned Advocate General has pointed out that the petitioner was transferred to the Office of Chief Medical Officer, District Mandi, H.P. as an Assistant Controller in the month of April, 2015 and since then, he has been serving either at Mandi or at Ner Chowk or Sundernagar, except for a stint of about one year when he was posted at Shimla. Learned Advocate General further submitted that in light of the fact that the petitioner has been serving within a radius of 25 Kilometers for almost a decade, he cannot assail the transfer which has been ordered in public interest by him. Learned Counsel appearing for the private respondent adopted the contentions of learned Advocate General. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as also learned Advocate General and learned Counsel for the private respondent. 6. It is a matter of record, as is evident from the averments made in the petition itself that the petitioner has been serving at Mandi-Ner-Chowk-Sundernagar, since the month of April, 2015, till date except for a stint of one year at Shimla. It is also not in dispute 3 2026:HHC:10394 that the petitioner is a Class-I Officer. In terms of the observations made by this Court on earlier occasion, there has to be some certainty as far as tenure of an employee at a station is concerned, but that certainty is not to be seen in isolation with a myopic perspective confining itself to the last station of posting, but has to be holistically examined as to whether the petitioner has been serving in and around the same area for a sufficiently long period or not. Herein, it is a matter of record that the petitioner has been serving in and around Mandi for about ten years. That being the case, even if the transfer of the petitioner and the private respondent is a result of a D.O. Note, obviously, Officers like the petitioner, who manage their postings in and around priced stations like Mandi-Ner Chowk-Sundernagar for a fairly long time, can only be displaced on the basis of D.O. Notes etc. 7. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of this case, as the petitioner has no right in law to continue to serve at Mandi or nearby stations, this Court is not interfering with impugned transfer order dated 31.03.2026 (Annexure P/2), present petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 06, 2026 (Rishi)