IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7383 of 2023 Date of Decision: 05.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Vinod Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr.Tejinder Singh & Mr. Sunil Dutt Gautam, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Sanskrit) at Government Senior Secondary School Boys, Nahan, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 01.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby he has been transferred from afore school to Government Senior Secondary School Khood, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel representing the petitioner is that the impugned transfer order is not sustainable, on account of fact that same has been passed during ban on transfers. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since children of the petitioner are studying in school, it may not be possible for him to get them admitted in school at Khood, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, during mid session and as such, impugned transfer order being unsustainable in law deserves to be quashed. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while passing impugned transfer order. 4. Careful perusal of pleadings as well as other documents adduced on record reveals that petitioner has been working at present place of posting since the year 2022, meaning thereby, he has already completed normal tenure of posting i.e. three years, as such no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while passing impugned transfer order and same is upheld. However, having taken note of the fact that studies of children of the petitioner are in mid session, 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 one week, praying therein for cancellation of transfer/adjustment at nearby station, which in turn 2 shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of ten days. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, besides affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, shall also take note of provision contained in Transfer Policy and pass appropriate orders. Till the time, representation, as detailed herein above, is not decided in terms of instant order, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at transferred station in terms of impugned transfer order, if not already relieved. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. May 05, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3