IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8405 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sunita Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan, Advocate. 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 (Arts) in Government High School Baduhi Khas u/c Government Senior Secondary School Baduhi, Education Block Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 17.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby she has been transferred from afore station to Government Senior Secondary School Hatli Jamwalan, District Kangra, 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 though petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting but since her transfer has been effected on the basis of DO Note issued by the extra Constitutional authority, impugned transfer order is not sustainable in the eye of law and as such, same is liable to be set aside. Besides above, it has been averred in the petition that since husband of the petitioner is also serving as TGT (Arts), transfer of the petitioner could not have been effected in a routine manner, rather she ought to have been given station convenient to her as well as her husband being couple case. 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 petitioner has been serving at present place of posting for more than two years and six months and as such, it cannot be said that she has been transferred in violation of transfer Policy. He further states that as per record, petitioner has been serving in the vicinity of present place of posting for more than four years. Having taken note of the averments contained in the petition as well as documents annexed therewith, this Court finds that petitioner has remained posted in the vicinity of present place of posting for more than four years. If it is so, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while passing impugned transfer order. Similarly, there is nothing on 2 record to suggest that impugned transfer order has been effected on the basis of DO note. Though petitioner has mentioned that the DO note has been issued by some office bearer of Youth congress, but that may not be of much relevance for the reason that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting. Bare perusal of impugned transfer order reveals that same was issued on the recommendation made from the Office bearer of the Youth Congress. For the reasons stated hereinabove, no interference is called for and as such, same is upheld. However, having taken note of the fact that the husband of the petitioner is also working as TGT (Arts), coupled with the fact that petitioner has already made representation to the competent authority for cancellation of transfer/adjustment at a convenient station on the ground of couple case, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation filed by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of ten days from today. 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 appropriate orders taking note of facts, as detailed in earlier part of the judgment as well as the object and intent of transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Till the time, representation, as detailed hereinabove, is not decided in terms of 3 instant order, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at transferred station in terms of impugned transfer order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. May 21, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 4