IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10532 of 2025 Decided on: 2nd July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ruchina Lalit …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur, 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) at GSSS Pangi, District Kinnaur. Her grievance is to the office order dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereunder she has been transferred to GHS Panvi, District Kinnaur and respondent No.3 has been brought in her place. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned office order has been issued only on the basis of a D.O. note issued at the instance of respondent No.3. It was further submitted that the petitioner having served for the requisite tenure at the present place, which falls under the hard and tribal area, is entitled to be given an option for her next posting. The said option was not provided to the petitioner before issuing the impugned office order. The petitioner has been transferred to a place, which is 60 kilometers from her native place. It was submitted that the place, where the petitioner has been sent, again falls in the hard and tribal area. The petitioner having served the hard area, could not have been transferred again to hard and tribal area. That the petitioner is a single parent of a four 3 years old child. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has already joined at the transferred station. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has preferred a representation on 11.06.2025 (Annexure P-3) to the Director Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh against the impugned office order and seeking her adjustment at a soft area of her choice. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied in case respondent No.2/ competent authority is directed to consider and decide the said representation within a time bound schedule. Learned Assistant Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 5. Taking note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the fact that the petitioner has already completed the requisite tenure at her present place of posting, which falls under the hard & tribal area and the fact that under the impugned office order, she has again been transferred to another hard and tribal area, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.2/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 11.06.2025 (Annexure P-3) for consideration of her case for transfer to a soft area of her choice in accordance with law and 4 applicable transfer policy, within a period of ten days from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 02, 2025 Judge Mukesh