Usha Devi vs State Of H.P. And Others

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:

I) “That writ of certiorari be passed for the quashment of impugned transfer order dated 4.5.2021 passed by respondent No.3 wherein the name of

petitioner is figured at serial No.3 and was directed to be transferred from Circle Bhalsi consisting of Panchayat’s Bhalsi, Nishani and Twar to

Circle Arshu consisting of Panchaats Niahani, Twar and Koti, as the circles were formed by respondent No.3 arbitrarily and capriciously with inherent

formation defect without taking into consideration administrative convenience, as one of the Panchayat incorporated in the circle is situated at a distant

place from other two panchayats contained in the circle which has resulted in difficulty in executing schemes expeditiously by defeating the purpose of

including MGNREGA in essential services and without consulting and associating the representatives of the Panchayats who are the real beneficiaries

of the development under MGNREGA scheme.

II) Further, a writ of Mandamus be issued by directed the respondent authorities to create the circles/cluster of panchayats administratively convenient

manner by consulting and associating the representatives of the pacnahayts who are the real beneficiaries of the development work under

MGNREGA scheme at panchayat level.â€​

The petitioner is a Gram Rozgaar Sewak and in the year 2016 was transferred to Circle Bhalsi, which caters to the Panchayats Bhalsi, Nishani and

Twar. However, vide order dated 4.5.2021, the petitioner has been transferred to Arshu Circle consisting of Panchayats Bhalsi, Nishani and Koti. She

has assailed the order primarily on the ground that the cluster of Panchayats carved out by the respondents is impractical and would make it extremely

difficult and not impossible for the petitioner to carry out her duties.

It is more than settled that carving out cluster or village, for the purpose of better administration, is purely a matter of policy decision wherein scope

of interference by this Court is extremely limited as this Court will not exercise its powers of judicial review to determining the correctness of the

policy decision of the Government or to indulge in an exercise of finding out whether there could be more appropriate or better alternatives. The

framing of a policy depends upon various factors, the consideration whereof falls in the domain of the executive and the Court would be loathe to

interfere with such decision. However, this would not to suggest that the policy decisions taken by the Government are immune from judicial review.

If the policy decision is found to be arbitrary, malafide or tailor-made to suit a person or class of persons, the same can be judicially reviewed by

Constitution Courts. However, if the decision is taken bona fide in larger public interest, the Court has to respect such decision of the executives, for

the policy making is in the domain of the executive.

That apart, if the policy decision is found not backed by cogent material or there is non-application of mind, even then the same can be interfered

with on the ground of being arbitrary or irrational. This is not the fact situation obtaining in the present case.

In view of the aforesaid discussion there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also

stand disposed of.