IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9717 of 2025 Date of Decision: 19.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Anchal Sharma …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Mr. Kunal Mehta & Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): While placing on record communication dated 18.06.2025, issued under the signatures of Dy. Director of Elementary Education, Kangra at Dharamshala, which is taken on record, Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though petitioner herein was transferred from GPS Lohar Lahadi, Education Block Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, to GPS Jurahi, Education Block Rakkar, but since there is only one teacher to teach the students, she could not be relieved. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. While making this Court peruse impugned order, Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that note appended below the afore transfer order itself suggests that before implementing impugned transfer order, it may be ensured that school is not left without a teacher. He states that since there is none to replace the petitioner, she has not been relieved. 3. Though Mr. Abhishek Nagta, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that it is the duty of the employer to make available substitute/reliever and an employee, who otherwise stands transferred, cannot be made to suffer due to lapse, if any, on the part of respondents/State. 4. Having carefully perused impugned transfer order, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, that school cannot be left with without a teacher. 5. Since in the school, from where petitioner has been ordered to be transferred, does not have any teacher, there appears to be no justification to interfere in the matter. However, having taken note of the fact that petitioner is about to complete her normal tenure at present place of posting, coupled with the fact that it is the duty of the employer to provide substitute/reliever, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to ensure that substitute/reliever is provided at the earliest so that 3 studies of the students studying in the present school as well as transferred station do not suffer. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 19, 2025 (Sunil)