IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10883 of 2025 Date of Decision: 08.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Harbans Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Yuyutsu Singh Thakur and Mr. Munish Kumar, Advocates. 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 03.07.2025 (Annexure P-2), passed by Director, School Education, Himachal Pradesh, passed in purported compliance of order dated 13.05.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.7821 of 2025, whereby this Court reserved liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within a period of one week, praying therein for cancellation of his transfer order, with the direction to the competent authority to decide the same within a period of two weeks, taking note of observations made in the order as well as very object and intent of Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Yuyutsu Singh Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that though in terms of order dated 13.05.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.7821 of 2025, Director, School Education, decided the representation, after affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, but again he passed similar order, which has been subject matter of the earlier writ petition. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner, submitted that though competent authority specifically recorded in his order that petitioner has already worked in sub-cadre area i.e. Kupvi, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, but yet, his prayer to adjust him at soft area, came to be rejected on the ground that post of Lecturer (SN) Pol. Science at GSSS Dadasiba, District Kangra, has become surplus due to low enrollment of students and otherwise also, one Lecturer is required to be posted at GSSS, Bagheigarh, District Chamba. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner, submits that though petitioner has completed normal tenure of posting at GSSS, Bagheigarh, but certainly on account of his having already served in sub-cadre area i.e. Kupvi, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, he could not have been again transferred to sub-cadre/hard area in terms of Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 3 3. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, states that that petitioner has been working in GSSS Dadasiba, District Kangra, for more than 10 years and after his being promoted to the post of Lecturer, Pol. Science, he never worked in sub-cadre/hard area. While fairly admitting that prior to impugned transfer order, petitioner had once served in sub-cadre area i.e. Kupvi, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, Mr. Kahol states that on promotion, an employee can be again sent to hard area, however, this Court is not persuaded to agree with Mr. Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. 4. Since petitioner has already served in sub-cadre area once in his service career, he cannot be again and again sent to sub- cadre/hard area, rather, other employees, who have never been sent to sub-cadre/hard area, are required to be posted at such stations. True it is that petitioner has already completed more than 10 years at GSSS Dadasiba, District Kangra, but in that eventuality, he could not have been transferred to hard area, rather, could have been shifted to some other soft area. 5. Repeatedly this Court has advised the State Government by way of various judicial pronouncements that an endeavor should be made to post each and every employee of the State at 4 sub-cadre/hard/tribal area, but unfortunately, influential employees manage their transfer and are never posted in sub-cadre/hard area, as a result thereof, employees who are faithful and have been discharging their duties without there being any protest are being sent to sub-cadre/hard/tribal area repeatedly, which if permitted, would amount to violation of the Transfer Policy. 6. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly the same is allowed. Impugned order dated 03.07.2025 (Annexure P-2), passed by Director, School Education, Himachal Pradesh, is quashed and set-aside with the direction to the competent authority to decide the representation of the petitioner afresh, taking note of observations made hereinabove as well as Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order. 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)