IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10390 of 2025 Decided on: 28th June, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Baby …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice confined to respondents No.1 and 2, which is waived by Mr. Rajat Choudhry, learned Assistant Advocate General. Considering the order being passed hereinafter, neither reply of the petition is required to be called for from the appearing respondents nor notice is required to be issued to respondent No.3. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the appearing parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. Petitioner is serving as Trained Graduate Teacher (Non-Medical) in the respondent-Education Department. She was serving at GSSS Sunhi, District Kangra. Pursuant to the decision rendered in Aman Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.2, the Director of School Education, Himachal Pradesh passed an order on 25.06.2025 (Annexure P-2), transferring respondent No.3 from GMS Runpu, under complex GSSS Kinnu, District Shimla to petitioner’s place of posting. Consequently, the petitioner was transferred to the place of posting of respondent No.3. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already served in sub-cadre/hard area w.e.f. 11.03.2019 to 21.09.2021. Thereafter, she was given her choice station, i.e. GSSS Sunhi, which incidentally also falls under rural area. The petitioner having been served in sub-cadre/hard area and rural area, should not have been transferred to GMS Runpu, District Shimla, which is again a rural area. It was also submitted that petitioner’s is a couple case. Her husband is also serving as TGT (Non- 2 CWP No.4129 of 2025, decided on 22.03.2025 3 Medical) at GHS Jalari, District Kangra. Petitioner and her husband had been posted within a radius of 15 kilometers in view of Clause 5.4 of the transfer policy. The impugned order violates the concession available to the petitioner and her husband under the aforesaid clause. To a query of the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the petitioner has completed her normal tenure at the present place of posting. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied in case she is permitted to make a representation to the competent authority/Director of School Education, Himachal Pradesh for her suitable adjustment in light of above submissions, whereafter, the said authority be directed to consider and decide the same within a time bound schedule. Learned Assistant Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 5. Looking to the grievance of the petitioner and the circumstances highlighted by her in the writ petition, this writ petition is disposed of without interfering with the impugned order dated 25.06.2025 (Annexure P-2) in respect of transfer of respondent No.3 to the place of posting of the petitioner, however, she is permitted to file a representation to the Director of School Education, 4 Himachal Pradesh/competent authority for her suitable adjustment within three days from today, whereafter, the same shall be considered and decided by the said authority in accordance with law and applicable transfer policy within a period of ten days thereafter. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. Till such decision, the petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station and shall be at liberty to avail leave of the kind due. It is made clear that in case no such representation is made within the aforesaid period, interim protection granted to the petitioner shall stand automatically vacated. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 28, 2025 Judge Mukesh