IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6953 of 2025 Date of Decision: 30.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Kalyan Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: M/s Mukesh Sharma and Gurdev Negi, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who is a JBT, is aggrieved by order dated 24.04.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from GPS Shillai-II, Education Block Shillai to GPS Kyar Mangola Education Block Sataun against vacancy in relaxation of sub-cadre reliever condition and in relaxation of ban on transfers. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Gurdev Negi, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that in terms of impugned transfer order dated 24.04.2025 (Annexure P-1), 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 willingness of the petitioner was required to be taken before being relieved from the present place of posting, which has not been obtained, as such, petitioner could not have been transferred, without obtaining his willingness for transfer from present place of posting, but in the case at hand, despite petitioner having shown unwillingness to relieve from the present place of posting, he has been ordered to be transferred from present place of posting to another station, as a result thereof, great prejudice has been caused to him. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no necessity to issue notice to respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol, while opposing the aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, states that since it is not in dispute that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, prayer made on his behalf to quash the impugned transfer order deserves outright rejection, however, after having perused impugned transfer order dated 24.04.2025, Mr. Kahol fairly admits that in case transferred employee is unwilling to be transferred and tenders his/her willingness, matter is required to be referred back to the department concerned along with his/her unwillingness. 3 4. True it is, that petitioner has almost completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but Clause (2) of note appended below the impugned transfer order clearly reveals that in case of transfer on mutual basis or against vacancy, in condonation of short stay, willingness of concerned teacher/official is required to be obtained by the Incharge/HOO before relieving him/her. In case he/she is not willing for the transfer, then he/she may not be relieved and the case may be referred back along with his/her unwillingness. 5. In the case at hand, precise grouse of the petitioner is that though he had given his unwillingness for transfer on account of adverse family circumstances, but yet he is being transferred. Though taking note of facts, as detailed hereinabove, case at hand is a fit case where impugned transfer order deserves to be quashed qua petitioner, but this Court at this stage deems it fit to dispose of the petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation within a period of one week praying therein for cancellation of his transfer in terms of Clause (2) of note appended below the impugned transfer order, which in-turn shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of one week thereafter. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order taking note of the fact that the petitioner 4 is unwilling to be relieved from the present place of posting and as such, his case is required to be considered in terms of Clause (2) of note appended below the impugned transfer order. Till the time, representation, as detailed hereinabove, is not decided by the competent authority in terms of instant order, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 30, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)