Himachal Pradesh High Court
Vijay Kumar Verma vs State Of H.P on 6 January, 2020
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
CWP No.1841 of 2019
Decided on:06.01.2020
.
Vijay Kumar Verma ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P ....Respondent.
................................................................................................
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice
The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate.
For respondent: Mr Ashok Sharma, Advocate General, with Mr.
J.K. Verma, Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Ms. Ritta
Goswami & Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Additional
Advocates General, for the respondent.
L.Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice (oral)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, who is working as Principal, has challenged the transfer order dated 9 th January, 2019, (Annexure P-1), hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned order', whereby the petitioner has been transferred from the Directorate of Higher Education, Shimla to Government Senior Secondary School, Majhar, Shimla.
2. It appears that the petitioner had approached the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal, Shimla, by way of filing Original Application No. 305 of 2019, assailing the impugned order (Annexure P-1). The said Original Application was disposed of vide order dated 18 th January, 2019, with liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed representation to the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2020 20:25:16 :::HCHP 2respondents-State within three days from the date of passing the order and the respondent-State was directed to consider and decide the same, in .
accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner filed representation (Annexure P-10) before the respondents-State, which was accordingly considered and rejected by the respondents-State.
3. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is physically challenged to the extent of 45%. He draws our attention to Disability Certificate (Annexure P-9). He prays that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is a physically challenged person. He has also placed on record Communication dated 04.01.2020, received from the Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, addressed to the learned Advocate General, wherein, it is mentioned that petitioner is holding the post of Principal which is a Class-I Gazetted Post and this post is a State Cadre Post, therefore, he can be transferred to anywhere in the State.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. From the perusal of the record, more particularly, the Disability Certificate (Annexure P-9), it is very difficult to find out as to what extent the petitioner is physically challenged. Further, when the representation made by the petitioner (Annexure P-10) in terms of the ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2020 20:25:16 :::HCHP 3 direction passed by the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal, in O.A. No.305/2019, was rejected by the respondents/Competent Authority, then the .
question of re-consideration of the same does not arise. Thus, we see no reason to interfere with consideration order (Annexure P-11) passed by the respondents/State.
7. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
r to (L. Narayana Swami),
Chief Justice
(Jyotsna Rewal Dua),
Judge
06th January, 2020
(rohit)
::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2020 20:25:16 :::HCHP