Dismissed¶¶18

Shiv Kumar Nadda v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC8 May 2026LPA/253/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

LPA dismissed; cancellation of transfer order upheld; transfer challengeable only for malafide of the official passing it; limited writ jurisdiction; administration left to authorities' wisdom in exigency of service; malafide allegation against private respondent No.6 rejected; appellant consistently posted in District Bilaspur for 20 years; Lect./Lect.(SN) Chemistry; GSSS Baldwara (Mandi); GSSS Dhanather (Bilaspur); Director of Higher Education; High Court of Himachal Pradesh.

What did the court decide?

Keeping in view the limited jurisdiction of the writ Court, issues of transfer can only be challenged if there is malafide of the official who passed the transfer orders. ¶¶14

Shiv Kumar Nadda Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Single Judge was right in declining to interfere with the cancellation of the appellant's transfer order dated 18.10.2025 (Annexure P-1). +1 more

¶¶8

Court's answer

Keeping in view the limited jurisdiction of the writ Court, issues of transfer can only be challenged if there is malafide of the official who passed the transfer orders.

¶¶14

Ratio / Principle

Transfers being in the exigency of services, the administration has to be best left to the authorities to their wisdom as to how best use their employees.

¶¶16

Key takeaways

The allegation that the cancellation was at the behest of private respondent No.6 fails, as private respondent No.6 is a party figure not connected in any manner with the Director of Higher Education who first passed the transfer order and thereafter cancelled it.ratio¶¶13
The learned Single Judge's choice not to exercise discretion was made keeping in view the history of the appellant's postings consistently in District Bilaspur over the last 20 (twenty) years.ratio¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Letters Patent Appeal against the learned Single Judge's refusal (CWP No.16958 of 2025, decided 03.03.2026) to interfere with the order dated 28.10.2025 (Annexure P-3) cancelling the appellant's earlier transfer order dated 18.10.2025 (Annexure P-1), which had the effect of the appellant continuing as Lect./Lect.(SN) Chemistry at GSSS Baldwara (Mandi) instead of GSSS Dhanather (Bilaspur). Held: given the limited jurisdiction of the writ Court, transfer orders can be challenged only where there is malafide of the official who passed them, and administration in matters of transfer is best left to the authorities' wisdom; the allegation that the cancellation was at the behest of private respondent No.6 failed as he was not connected with the Director of Higher Education who passed and cancelled the order; the Single Judge's refusal to exercise discretion, in view of the appellant's consistent posting in District Bilaspur for 20 years, suffered no illegality or perversity. Appeal dismissed; pending miscellaneous application(s) disposed of.

¶1

¶2

( 2025:HHC:46549 )

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.253 of 2026 Date of Decision:- 08.05.2026

¶4

Shiv Kumar Nadda	....Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others	....Respondents

¶5

Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice, Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Appellant : Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Mr. Mukul Sharma and Mr. Anu Minhas, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4-State.

¶7

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral).

¶8

Consideration in the present Letters Patent Appeal is sought to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.16958 of 2025 titled Shiv Kumar Nadda Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 03.03.2026, whereby the learned Single Judge did not interfere in the order dated 28.10.2025 (Annexure P-3), whereby the petitioner’s earlier transfer order dated 18.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) was cancelled. Resultant effect was that the petitioner continuous to

¶9

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

¶11

be posted as Lect./Lect.(SN) Chemistry at GSSS Baldwara (Mandi) and not at GSSS Dhanather, (Bilaspur), where he wishes to.

¶12

2. The learned Single Judge has categorically recorded that the earlier transfer order dated 18.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) was got by way of mutual consent with private respondent No.5 and apparently since the appointment of the appellant in the year 2005 he continued to stay in the same station District Bilaspur and within the radius of 50 kilometers. It is in such circumstances, the learned Single Judge has chosen not to interfere in the cancellation of the transfer order.

¶13

3. Counsel for the appellant has vehmently submitted that the cancellation was at the behest of private respondent No.6. A perusal of the array of parties would go on to show that private respondent No.6 is a party figure and not connected as such in any manner with the Director of Higher Education who firstly passed the transfer order and thereafter cancelled.

¶14

4. In such cirucmstances, we are of the considered opinion that keeping in view the limited jurisdiction of the writ Court and that the issues of transfer can only be challenged if there is malafide of the official who passed the transfer orders and on account of the fact that the transfers are in exigency of

¶15

¶16

services and the administration has to be best left to the authorities to their wisdom as to how best use their employees.

¶17

5. The learned Single Judge has chosen not to exercise the discretion, keeping in view the history and the postings as such of the appellant consistently in District Bilaspur over the last 20 (twenty) years.

¶18

6. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to take a different view as we do not find that the view taken by the learned Single Judge as such suffers from any illegality or perversity which would warrant interference. Resultantly, the present appeal stands dismissed.

¶19

7. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶20

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

¶21

(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge

¶22

8^th May, 2026

¶23

(Munish Thakur)

Shiv Kumar Nadda v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar Nadda v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manju Chawla Vs BSNL

Kalasu Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Hp and Ors.

State of Hp and Others Vs Manica Sharma

Hari Ram Vs Himachal Pradesh State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. and Others

Harmesh Chand Vs State of Hp