IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 11194/2025 Decided on: 11.07.2025 Mamta Kumari …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. Petitioner is serving as Drawing Master at Government Senior Secondary School Ambota, District Una. Apparently, this is petitioner’s first posting. Her grievance is that on completion of her normal tenure of three years at the aforesaid station, she preferred a representation on 16.05.2025 (Annexure P-3) to respondent 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 No.2/competent authority seeking her transfer to any suitable Government Senior Secondary School within the Shimla Municipal Corporation area. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is suffering from 40 % permanent disability in relation to both eyes. That in accordance with provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the petitioner is entitled for posting nearby her native place. Reliance in support of such submission was also placed upon Savita Gupta Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 5. To a query of the Court as to why the petitioner has preferred to be posted only to a particular place, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the petitioner does not have any right to seek posting/adjustment within Shimla Municipal Corporation area. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, in case, she is permitted to make a fresh representation to respondent No.2/competent authority, whereafter, the said respondent/competent authority be directed to decide the representation, to be made by her, in accordance with law and in terms of above decision, within time bound schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to this prayer. 2 CWP No. 6306/2025 decided on 05.07.2024 3 6. In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make a fresh representation to respondent No.2/competent authority, within a period of two weeks from today for the redressal of her grievances, who shall in turn, consider and decide the same, in accordance with law and keeping in view above decision, within a further 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. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 11th July, 2025(rohit)