2025:HHC:27990 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8542 of 2025 Decided on: 19th August, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Renu Patyal …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Aman Parth Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner is serving as Trained Graduate Teacher (Non-Medical) in the respondent-Education Department. Her grievance is to the office order dated 20.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) that transfers her from GHS Bah under complex GSSS Rakhota, District Mandi to GHS Jawalapur under complex GSSS Kot Snore, District Mandi, vice respondent No.4. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:27990 2. The transfer order has been assailed by the petitioner on the grounds that:- 2(i). Petitioner was posted at her present place, i.e. GHS Bah on 05.03.2024. She had rendered only about 14 months of service at GHS Bah, when impugned office order was issued. Petitioner has not been allowed to complete the normal tenure of three years at her present place. 2(ii). Transfer has been ordered only on the basis of a D.O. note issued at the instance of respondent No.4 by an extra constitutional authority. Taking into consideration the grounds urged for the petitioner, operation of the impugned office order was stayed qua the petitioner and respondent No.4 vide order dated 23.05.2025. 3. Respondent No.4 in his reply to the writ petition has pleaded that the petitioner though belongs to State cadre, but has continuously remained posted within District Mandi during her entire service tenure of over 17 years. That the petitioner had also managed her transfers within District Mandi on the basis of D.O. notes. That the petitioner had remained posted within District Mandi at short distances. That respondent No.4 has served at different places. It is on account of his existing adverse 3 2025:HHC:27990 family circumstances that respondent No.4 had requested for his transfer, which was accepted and he was accordingly posted at petitioner’s place. 4. Respondent-State has not filed reply despite grant of opportunities. It has, however, placed on record incumbency positions of the petitioner and respondent No.4, which are as under:- Incumbency of Petitioner Sr. No. Previous places of posting Period Distance Approx. 1 GMS Chamyar u/c GSSS Maseran (Mandi) 2-4-2013 to 20-5-2016 2 GMS Bah u/c GSSS Rakhota 20-5-2016 to 15-2-2021 26 Kms. 3 GMS Sadwal (Mandi) Nabahi 16-2-2021 to 7-3-2024 15 Kms. 4 GMS Bah u/c GSSS Rakhota (Mandi) 7-3-2024 to date 15 Kms. Incumbency of Respondent No.4 Sr. No. Previous places of posting Period Distance Approx. 1 GHS Lelan (Shimla) 23-06-2011 to 12-3-2018 2 GMS Gaunta u/c GSSS Jamni (Distt. Mandi) 13-3-2018 to 24-3-2021 280 Kms. 3 GSSS Rissa (Mandi) 24-3-2021 to 14-5-2025 16 Kms. 4 GHS Jawalapur (Mandi) 14-5-2025 to date 81 Kms. The above-extracted tabulated incumbency position of the petitioner clearly reflects that not only the petitioner has served within District Mandi ever since her joining the respondent-Education Department in the year 4 2025:HHC:27990 2013, but has remained posted at short distances. In fact, petitioner is serving within a distance of 26 kilometers w.e.f. 20.05.2016 and within a distance of 15 kilometers w.e.f. 16.02.2021. Therefore, her contention of having not been allowed to complete normal tenure of three years at one place is not tenable. As against this, respondent No.4 has served for about 07 years in District Shimla. Thereafter, though he has served in District Mandi, but at stations which are not in the vicinity of each other and are located at long distances. The petitioner has not refuted respondent No.4’s allegation of she (petitioner) being herself the beneficiary of D.O. notes in past. That being the position, the petitioner, in the given facts and circumstances, cannot be heard to complain against the impugned office order having been issued on the basis of D.O. note. Even otherwise, respondent No.4 has explained the circumstances in which he has requested for his transfer to petitioner’s place. In view of above, no interference is called for in the impugned transfer order. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 5 2025:HHC:27990 Interim order dated 23.05.2025 is vacated forthwith. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 19, 2025 Judge Mukesh