Pankaj Vardhan vs State Of H.P. And Ors

Satyen Vaidya, J

Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents-State.

Petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition for following relief(s):-

i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure P-2 i.e. impugned office order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the respondent No.2.

ii) That the respondent may kindly be directed to transfer the present petitioner from GPS Gundhan, Education Bock Bakras, District Sirmour, H.P. to one of his choice of station as per the transfer policy i.e. (1) GCPS Hataun Block Sadar-II at Kataula, (2) GPS Samaseri under GCPS Hataun Block SADAR-II at Kataula, (3) GPS Nagdhar under GCPS Hataun Block Sadar-II at Kataula respectively, where the post of JBT teacher is lying vacant till date, in the interest of justice and fair play.

On earlier occasion petitioner had approached this Court by way of CWP No. 8427 of 2022, which came to be decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 07.01.2023 in following terms:-

“Petitioner has approached this Court seeking transfer from present place of posting to station of his choice on the basis of Transfer Policy of the State. He has also submitted a representation dated 26.09.2022 to the Director of Elementary Education, Shimla, H.P.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner would be content, in case his representation is directed to be decided in time bound manner, in terms of Transfer Policy.

In view of above, petitioner is permitted to file fresh representation alongwith copy of representation dated 26.09.2022 to respondent No.2-Director of Elementary Education, Shimla, H.P., within seven days from today and in case such representation is submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.2 shall decide the same on or before 31.01.2023, by affording opportunity of hearing in case desired so, by passing a speaking and reasoned order, in terms of Transfer Policy of the State. Order passed by respondent No.2-Director of Elementary Education, Shimla, shall be communicated to the petitioner and in case petitioner still feels aggrieved, he shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy.”

In compliance to order dated 07.01.2023, passed by this Court, the competent authority issued impugned order (Annexure P-2), dated 30.01.2023 and rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not posted at a station which could be termed as Hard Area/ Most Difficult or Sub Cadre Area.

The grievance now raised by the petitioner by way of instant petition is against the office order (Annexure P-2), dated 30.01.2023, on the ground that the competent authority has neither considered nor discussed an important aspect of the matter as the station where the petitioner is presently posted is more than 5 Kms away from the road and such distance is to be walked for reaching the station. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, ‘Comprehensive Guiding Principles-2013’-for regulating the transfers of the State Government employees, take cares of such situation and a station which is at a distance of more than 5 Kms from the road is termed as ‘Hard Area’.

In this background, the challenge has been laid to impugned office order (Annexure P-2), dated 30. 01.2023.

I have perused the impugned office order dated 30.01.2023 (Annexure P-2) and have not found anything, which may lead to an inference that the competent authority had considered the case of the petitioner in light of the fact that the station where he is posted is at a distance of 5 Kms from the road. Petitioner though had placed reliance on a communication (distance certificate) issued by the Executive Engineer, HPPWD, on 11.08.2023, but the same has neither been considered nor discussed.

In light of above, petitioner has made out a case for interference. The impugned office order (Annexure P-2), dated 30.01.2023 issued by the Director of Elementary Education, H.P., is quashed and set-aside with the direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner, more particularly, in light of observations made hereinabove and order passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 8427 of 2022 and decide the same within three weeks from the date of the production of this order.

It is clarified that the petitioner shall be at liberty to submit additional representation before the competent authority within one week from today, detailing therein the vacant stations, if any, where the petitioner can be posted or adjusted as the case may be.

The petition, is accordingly, disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application if any.