IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10330 of 2025 Decided on: 27th June, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sudesh Dogra …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal and Ms. Parul Negi, Advocates, for the caveator/respondent No.3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of decision rendered in Sudesh Dogra Versus State of H.P. & Ors.2, petitioner’s challenge to office order dated 07.05.2025 be treated as given up. Accordingly, names of respondents No.3 and 4 be also permitted to be deleted from the array of parties. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 CWP No.7856 of 2025, decided on 13.05.2025 2 2. Prayer is accepted. Names of respondents No.3 and 4 are ordered to be deleted from the array of parties. Amended memo of parties be filed within two days. Registry is directed to carry out necessary corrections in the cause title. Petitioner’s challenge to office order dated 07.05.2025 (Annexure P-5) shall be deemed to have been given up. In view of above statement, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 seeks permission to withdraw the caveat petition. Accordingly, the caveat petition, bearing No.396 of 2025, is disposed of as withdrawn. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while deciding petitioner’s representation pursuant to the directions issued in Sudesh Dogra2, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order dated 25.06.2025 (Annexure P-8), rejecting the case of the petitioner on the ground that the posts/places furnished by the petitioner in the representation were not lying vacant. Learned counsel further submits that some other posts of TGT (Arts) will become available and the petitioner be permitted to make a fresh representation to respondent No.2/competent authority for her suitable adjustment, whereafter, respondent No.2/competent authority be directed to 3 consider and decide the same within a time bound schedule. Learned Deputy Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to furnish a fresh representation to respondent No.2/competent authority for her suitable adjustment within two days from today, whereafter, the same shall be considered and decided by respondent No.2/competent authority in accordance with law and applicable transfer policy within a period of ten days thereafter, i.e by or before 10.07.2025. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. It is made clear that this order shall not come in the way of joining of respondent No.3 in terms of transfer order dated 07.05.2025. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 27, 2025 Judge Mukesh