IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9012 of 2025 Decided on: 30th May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vijay Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioner had twice forgone his promotion to the post of Head Teacher in past statedly in view of his adverse family circumstances. Under office order dated 26.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), the respondents promoted certain eligible Junior Basic Teachers working in District Una as Head Teachers and posted them as such. Name of the petitioner figures at Sr. No.1 of the list. Consequent upon his 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 promotion as Head Teacher, the petitioner was transferred from Changer, Bangana to Jatehri, Bangana, District Una. Petitioner has grievance to his place of posting, i.e. Jatehri, Bangana. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mother of the petitioner has recently died due to brain hemorrhage. His elder brother is suffering from liver cirrhosis. His younger brother had met with an accident and is under treatment & hospitalized at Ludhiana. That in view of compelling adverse family circumstances, it will be difficult for the petitioner to join as Head Teacher at Jatehri, Bangana. That the posts of Head Teacher are lying vacant at several stations, where the petitioner can be easily accommodated and from where he can discharge his family responsibilities. Learned counsel further submits that though the petitioner has represented to the respondents vide Annexure P-3, however, he would be satisfied in case he is permitted to prefer a fresh representation to the respondents/competent authority for his adjustment as Head Teacher at some other place and thereafter the competent authority be directed to decide the same within a time bound schedule. Learned Deputy Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 3 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file a fresh representation to respondent No.2/competent authority, seeking his adjustment at some other place, within two days from today. In case such a representation is received by respondent No.2/competent authority within the aforesaid period, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law and applicable transfer policy within a period of four days thereafter. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. Till such decision, condition No.1 of the impugned office order dated 26.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) shall not be imposed against the petitioner. It is made clear that in case no such representation is made within the aforesaid period, interim protection granted to the petitioner shall stand automatically vacated. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 30, 2025 Judge Mukesh