IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5881 of 2025 Date of Decision:10.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Vinod Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT(Non- Medical) in Government Middle School, Jaguni under complex Government Senior Secondary School, Dansa, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his representation (Annexure P-3), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from aforesaid school to some other school, as detailed in the representation, on account of his having completed more than four years at present place of posting. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Careful perusal of the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record reveals that prior to filing of the petition at hand, petitioner had filed CWP No.3945 of 2024, which was disposed of on 10th May 2024, with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner with regard to his transfer. Though, petitioner filed representation in terms of aforesaid order passed by this Court, but same was rejected on the ground that since it is a mid academic session, it may not be possible to transfer the petitioner to one of the station, as detailed in the representation. Now since academic session is over and petitioner has already completed more than four years at present place of posting, he has again approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his representation afresh. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in terms of transfer policy. 3 4. Since, it is quite apparent from order dated 5th July, 2024 passed by the Director Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh in compliance to order dated 10.05.2024 passed in CWP No.3945 of 2024 that earlier representation filed by the petitioner was not considered on the plea of midsession and now academic session is over, there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner afresh. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner afresh expeditiously, preferably within a period of ten days. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the transfer policy. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 10, 2025 (shankar)