IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.8247 of 2025 Decided on: 19th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Anuradha ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Devender K.Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3 Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice confined to respondents No.1 to 3, which is accepted by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. In view of nature of order being passed hereinafter neither the reply is required to be called from respondents No.1 to 3, nor notice is required to be issued to respondent No.4. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - 2. Petitioner is serving as TGT (Arts) at GHS Ratti, u/c GSSS Bhagrotu (Boys), District Mandi, H.P. Under office order dated 09.05.2025, she has been transferred to GSSS Sudhrani, District Mandi vice respondent No.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner though conceded that petitioner has completed more than her normal tenure at the present place of posting, but urges that in view of her family circumstances, i.e. her son currently studying in Class 10th and her husband being a Government employee, working as TGT (Med) at GSSS Bassi, District Chachiyot, District Mandi, petitioner seeks suitable adjustment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner would be satisfied in case she is permitted to make a representation to respondent No.2/Competent Authority, seeking her adjustment at a suitable place, whereafter, respondent No.2/Competent Authority be directed to consider her representation within a time bound schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection for the same. 4. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, but without interfering with the transfer of respondent No.4 under the impugned order, this writ petition is disposed of - 3 - by permitting the petitioner to prefer a representation to respondent No.2/Competent Authority for her suitable adjustment. In case such a representation is made within two weeks, the same shall be considered and decided by the Competent Authority, in accordance with law and as per applicable notification/policy, within a week thereafter. Copy of decision so taken, be communicated to the petitioner Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 19, 2025 R.Atal