2025:HHC:21807 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10843 of 2025 Date of Decision: 08.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Shashi Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein is aggrieved of order dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by Director, School Education, Himachal Pradesh, whereby representation, having been filed by the petitioner in terms of order dated 21.05.2025, passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.8376 of 2025, titled Shashi Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Anr., came to be rejected. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vivek Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that impugned order is not in compliance with the mandate contained in the judgment dated 21.05.2025, because adverse family circumstances, as indicated by 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:21807 2 the petitioner in his representation, has not been taken into consideration by the competent authority, while deciding his representation. Besides above, above named counsel, while making this Court peruse representation having been filed by by the petitioner before the Director, School Education, states that though in the Schools indicated by the petitioner in his representation, there were number of Teachers with longer stay, but yet representation, having been filed by him, has been rejected on the ground that at present, post of TGT (Arts) is not lying vacant in the Schools mentioned in the representation. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Chauhan, while making this Court peruse impugned order dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), states that there is no illegality in the same because no post of TGT (Arts) was lying vacant in the Schools, as indicated by the petitioner. He further submitted that otherwise also, an employee cannot seek transfer as a matter of right. 4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, vis-a-vis reasons assigned in the impugned order dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), this Court is 2025:HHC:21807 3 persuaded to agree with Mr. Vivek Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner that once petitioner had stated in his representation that some of the Teachers in the Schools indicated in the representation are having longer stay, competent authority ought to have made an effort to verify afore fact before rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner. Impugned order itself suggests that petitioner had requested for his transfer either to GMS Ropa E/B Gopalpur, GMS Khundla u/c GSSS Baldwara, GMS Thana Chowki u/c GSSS Trifalghat, District Mandi, and while doing so, he has specifically stated in the representation that in case actual stay of some of the Teachers in afore School is counted by clubbing their previous stay within the radius of 30 kilometers, there would be many with longer stay, but it appears that Director, School Education, merely taking note of the fact that at present 51 students are studying at GSSS Saintari, where the petitioner is working, proceeded to reject the representation. 5. 5. No doubt, it is the sole prerogative of an employer to post an employee at a particular station, but once Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, provides for minimum tenure of three years at one station, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already completed more than five years at the present station, Director, School Education, ought to have called for 2025:HHC:21807 4 complete record to ascertain the correctness of the submission made in the representation of the petitioner. 6. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly the same is allowed. Impugned order dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and set-aside. Respondents are directed to decide the representation of the petitioner afresh, taking note of observations made hereinabove expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned, with a view to give complete effect to the orders passed by this Court, would not hesitate to transfer an employee from the Schools concerned, if he/she has already completed normal tenure of posting. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of along with pending application(s), if any. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 08, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)