IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9857 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.07.2025 __________________________________________________________ Geeta Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. Mr. Sat Parkash, Advocate, for respondent No.4. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Arts) at GSSS Jhajjakothi, is aggrieved of order dated 04.06.2025, passed by Director, School Education (Annexure P-1), whereby she has been transferred from afore station to GHS Nailla, under complex GSSS, Kalhel, District Chamba. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Devender K. Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that since petitioner has already served in hard area for more than five years, coupled with the fact that impugned transfer order itself contains condition that in case incumbent has already served sub-cadre/hard/tribal/difficult area, in that event he/she may not be 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 relieved again to areas ibid, there was no occasion, if any, for respondents to transfer the petitioner to GHS Nailla, under complex GSSS, Kalhel, District Chamba, which is again a hard area. 3. While inviting attention of this Court to Clause 16.5 of the Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Mr. Sharma states that resident of hard area is also entitled to be transferred to soft area after his/her having completed five years of service in hard/tribal area, if it is so, petitioner could not have been again transferred to hard area, rather, ought to have been given station of her choice. 4. Pursuant to order dated 19.06.2025, Mr. Sat Parkash, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of private-respondent No.4, but despite there being specific order passed by this Court, no instructions have been placed on record by respondents/State. Above named counsel while fairly acknowledging factum with regard to posting of the petitioner for more than five years at the present place of posting, states that at present three stations at the distance of 9-10 kilometers are lying vacant and petitioner can be adjusted there. 5. After having carefully perused the impugned transfer order, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, fairly admits that on account of service rendered by the petitioner in hard/tribal area for more than five years, she could not have been transferred to hard/tribal area again and as such, this Court may pass appropriate orders. 3 6. Since it is quite apparent from the pleadings, adduced on record by the petitioner, which is duly supported by way of affidavit, that petitioner has joined at the present place of posting on 10.01.2019 and afore station falls in Education Block Tissa, District Chamba, which is again hard/sub-cadre area, she could not have been again transferred to hard area, rather, in terms of Clause 16.5 of the Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, ought to have been given station of her choice. 7. Leaving everything aside, there was no occasion, if any, for Principal of GSSS, Jhajjakothi, to relieve the petitioner, enabling private- respondent to join at her place, especially when factum with regard to posting of the petitioner at particular station for more than five years was in the knowledge of the Principal of the School concerned. Very object and purpose of incorporating the condition of not relieving the employee/teacher from the School concerned in the event of his/her having already worked in hard/tribal area is to avoid multiplicity of litigation, but it appears that Principal of the School concerned ignoring the Transfer Policy as well as note appended below the impugned transfer order, proceeded to relieve the petitioner, which is wholly impermissible. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and impugned transfer order dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and set-aside qua the petitioner only. Since there was no 4 fault, if any, of private-respondent No.4, this Court hopes and trusts that necessary order, thereby posting the private-respondent No.4 at a convenient station shall be passed expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 02, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)