IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7217 of 2025 Date of Decision:02.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ajeet Singh …….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. Surinder Prakash Sharma, 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 (Arts), is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 29.04.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from Government Senior Secondary School, Rampur Bharapur, Sirmour to Government High School Pamta u/c Government Senior Secondary School Kaffota, Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh vice Sh. Netar Singh, respondent No.3. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner, is that impugned transfer order has been issued in 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 violation of transfer policy because petitioner has not been permitted to complete his normal tenure of posting at present place of posting. Besides above, it has been further averred that transfer of the petitioner has been effected to accommodate respondent No.3, who has political connection. 3. Having regard to the nature of the prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General states that petitioner has already completed more than two years seven months at present place of posting. He states that otherwise also, he has been transferred at the distance of 37 Km. He states that otherwise petitioner being TGT can be transferred in any part of the State of Himachal Pradesh. Having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already completed more than two years seven months at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that distance between present place of posting and transferred station is only 37 Km and both schools fall in District Sirmour itself, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned transfer order. Similarly, no cogent material has been placed on record suggestive of the fact that impugned transfer order has been effected on political grounds. 3 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court sees no reason to interfere in the impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld. However, having taken note of adverse family circumstances, as came to be apprised to this Court during proceedings of the case, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within a period of three days, praying therein of his adjustment at nearby station, which in turn, shall be decided by competent authority within a period of one week. Ordered accordingly. 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 formulated by Government of Himachal Pradesh, which enables an employee to seek transfer or adjustment on the ground of adverse family circumstances. Till the time representation, if any, filed by the petitioner within a period of three days is not decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station, if not already relieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 02,2025 (shankar)