2025:HHC:19983 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10265 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.06.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Om Prakash …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Narvada Kashyap, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 28.05.2025 passed by Director, School Education, Himachal Pradesh (Annexure P-4), whereby representation, having been filed by the petitioner herein in terms of order dated 10.04.2025, passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.5686 of 2025, titled as Om Prakash Vs. State of H.P. and Others, came to be rejected on the pretext that at present, more than 500 posts of JBTs/HTs are lying vacant in District Shimla, whereas 310 posts of JBTs/HTs in District Kullu, where petitioner is seeking posting under 5% inter-district quota, are lying vacant. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that petitioner, who at present is serving as JBT at GPS Bhareri, Education Block Kumarsain, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, approached this Court by way of CWP No.5686 of 2025, seeking therein direction to respondents to consider his representation dated 20.11.2024 for his transfer to any of the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:19983 2 stations of his choice. Coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the same in following manner: “3. Whether the petitioner is required to be transferred and to a station of his choice, is to be examined by the competent authority. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law and applicable transfer policy within a period of four weeks. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.” In the afore background, representation, as detailed hereinabove, came to be considered and rejected vide impugned order dated 28.05.2025, which has been laid challenge in the instant proceedings. 3. Careful perusal of afore order reveals that petitioner herein sought transfer from District Shimla to District Kullu under 5% inter-district quota, which prayer of him came to be rejected on the ground that in District Shimla, there are 3310 posts of JBTs/HTs and out of these, 500 posts of JBTs/HTs are lying vacant, whereas in District Kullu, where sanctioned posts of JBTs/HTs are 1628, there are 310 posts of JBTs/HTs lying vacant. 4. Though taking note of aforesaid figures, respondents/State have found that services of the petitioner are very much required in District Shimla, but having taken note of the numbers, as detailed hereinabove, this Court finds that out of 3310 posts of JBTs/HTs in District Shimla, only 500 posts are lying vacant, whereas in District Kullu, out of 1628 posts of JBTs/HTs, 310 posts are lying vacant, if it is so, no prejudice, if any, shall 2025:HHC:19983 3 be caused to either of the parties in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioner to transfer him to District Kullu is accepted. 5. It is apparent from the impugned order that total percentage of vacant posts in District Kullu is higher in comparison to vacant posts in District Shimla, if it is so, it is not understood that as to how and on what analogy, authorities, while disposing of the representation filed by the petitioner, arrived at a conclusion that services of the petitioner are more required in District Shimla. Once Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, itself provides for 5% inter-district quota and person after his/her having completed five years in one District can seek transfer to other District, coupled with the fact that Junior Basic Teachers are very much required in District Kullu, there appears to be no justification to deny the relief, as has been prayed in the present petition. 6. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 28.05.2025 (Annexure P-4) is quashed and set- aside. Director, School Education, Himachal Pradesh, is directed to reconsider the representation afresh, taking note of observations made hereinabove and pass appropriate orders, thereby transferring the petitioner from District Shimla to District Kullu. Needful in terms of instant judgment shall be done expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two weeks. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 26, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)