IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 16958 of 2025 Decided on: 03.03.2026 Shiv Kumar Nadda …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh, DAG for respondents No. 1 to 4. : Mr. Paresh Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 5. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Authority dated 28.10.2025 (Annexure P-5), in terms whereof, mutual transfer of the petitioner and respondent No. 5 effected vide office order dated 18.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) has been cancelled. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason that there is no rationality in cancellation of the order that was passed by the competent authority on 18.10.2025, that too on the mutual request made by the petitioner and respondent No. 5. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner has gone for mutual transfer in light of the fact that he has to look after his aged mother, who is suffering from various ailments and his wife is serving as a teacher at Shimla and therefore also, the impugned order, cancelling the mutual transfer of the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned Counsel also argued that as transfer of the petitioner has been cancelled at the behest of respondent No. 6, therefore also, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General referred to the reply filed by the respondents-State and has submitted that the petitioner is serving against a State Cadre post as Lecturer (School Cadre) in the subject of Chemistry. He further submitted that a perusal of the contents of the petition would demonstrate that since his appointment in the year 2005, for the last more than 20 years, the petitioner has been serving in and around the same station in District Bilaspur and even now, the place to which the petitioner has been transferred, was also 50 kms away from his present place of posting, which stands cancelled. Accordingly, he submitted that as the cancellation of the transfer is with prior approval of the competent authority and otherwise also, 3 there was no right vested in the petitioner to seek his transfer by way of adjustment in light of his previous postings, the impugned order need not be interfered with. 4. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 submitted that though said respondent has not filed any reply, but respondent No. 5 has no objection in case the petition is allowed. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as impugned orders. 6. It is a matter of record that office order dated 18.10.2025 was passed by the Competent Authority on the mutual request of the petitioner and respondent No. 5, in terms whereof, the petitioner, who was posted at Baldwara in the month of April, 2025, as was disclosed to the Court, was adjusted at Dhanather and respondent No. 5 was transferred and adjusted at Baldwara. 7. These two stations are stated to be about 50 kms from each other. In terms of the impugned order, this mutual transfer has been cancelled with immediate effect on 28.10.2025. 8. Though, ordinarily in such a situation, this Court would have had interfered with but then it transpires from the averments made in para-3 of the writ petition that since the year 2005, the petitioner has been serving at stations which are in close vicinity to 4 each other despite the fact that he belongs to a State Cadre post. For a very short stint, the petitioner served outside the zone of his comfort a nd now in terms of revocation of mutual transfer order dated 18.01.2025, the effect thereof is that the petitioner has been called upon to serve at a station where he has been transferred in the month of April, 2025. Mutual transfer was not effected on petitioner’s completion of normal tenure at Baldwara. He was posted there only in the month of April, 2025. In these peculiar facts, as this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned order, the petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 03, 2026 (narender)