IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8871 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.05.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Meena …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: M/s Vinay Mehta and Devi Singh Verma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who is working as Shastri (C&V Teacher) in Government Senior Secondary School, Ghoshal, District Lahaul & Spiti, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-1), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from District Lahaul & Spiti to District Mandi, in a time bound manner. 2. It is averred in the petition, which is duly supported by way of an affidavit, that petitioner has been working in District Lahaul & Spiti since 2021 and now since she has solemnized marriage with a person hailing from Mandi, she may be transferred to District Mandi under 5% inter-district quota. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar attempted to defeat the claim of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner has not completed normal tenure of five years in District Lahaul & Spiti and as such, her prayer for inter-district transfer under 5% quota cannot be considered. He submitted that at the time of posting of the petitioner in District Lahaul & Spiti, she stood married and as such, that cannot be a ground to seek transfer under 5% inter-district quota. 4. Having perused notification dated 20.11.2021 (Annexure P-3), issued by the Department of Education, Government of Himachal Pradesh, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Vinay Mehta, learned counsel representing the petitioner that no minimum tenure shall be fixed for changing the district due to marriage, in the case of a female teacher. True it is that marriage of the petitioner was solemnized prior to her appointment, but that cannot make a difference, especially when afore notification specifically provides that no minimum tenure shall be fixed for changing the district due to marriage, in the case of a female teacher. Since it is not in dispute that petitioner married to a person hailing from District Mandi, she is very much entitled to seek transfer under 5% inter-district quota. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with the direction to respondents to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-1) expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks from today. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of 3 being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereupon taking note of Clause C(2) of the notification dated 20.11.2021, as detailed hereinabove. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 28, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)