2025:HHC:23531 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11669 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Vijay 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. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 01.05.2025 (Annexure P-2), issued under the signatures of Director, School Education, Himachal Pradesh, whereby authority concerned while considering the representation dated 12.03.2025, though considered the request of the petitioner for transfer from GHS Nagan, District Shimla to GHS Nalangar, GHS Kudhar, GHS Ropri, GHS Bairi, District Hamirpur, GSSS Gandhir, GSSS Rishikesh (BLP), GSSS Dhussara, GSSS Saroa, GSSS Dhaneta, District Una, GSSS Sakot, District Kangra, but rejected the same on the ground that enrollment of students at present place of posting is approximately 18 and as such, it may not be possible to transfer the petitioner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:23531 2 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that in terms of order dated 12.03.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.3437 of 2025, tilted Vijay Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Others, though competent authority decided the representation filed by the petitioner, but nowhere explored possibility of posting petitioner in the schools, detailed in the representation, rather merely on the pretext that 18 students are studying in Nagan, District Shimla, rejected the representation of the petitioner. He states that since there are number of teachers with overstay in number of schools, respondents with a view to mitigate the problem of the petitioner, ought to have transferred one of the person with longer stay to GHS Nagan, District Shimla. He further states that since petitioner has already completed more than normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, prayer made on his behalf for transfer to one of the station of his choice, ought to have been allowed by the respondents. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Chauhan states that since on account of 2025:HHC:23531 3 transfer, if any, of the petitioner from the present place of posting, studies of 18 students would be seriously affected, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the competent authority while rejecting the request of petitioner. He further states that otherwise also, petitioner has no right to seek posting at a particular station, rather, it is the sole prerogative of an employer to post an employee at a particular station. 4. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by way of affidavit, this Court finds that though in terms of order dated 12.03.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.3437 of 2025, respondents disposed of the representation filed by the petitioner, but having perused the same, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, learned counsel representing the petitioner that no attempt has been made by the respondents to find-out whether petitioner herein can be posted at any of the Schools, indicated by him in the representation or not. Though this Court is of the view that studies of students cannot be permitted to suffer on account of insufficiency of staff, but once it is not in dispute that there are number of teachers with longer stay in number of Schools, it was expected from the authority concerned to find out one employee with longer stay to post him/her at GHS Nagan, District Shimla, from where petitioner subsequently can be transferred 2025:HHC:23531 4 to one of the station, as detailed in the representation. Once Transfer Policy, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, prescribes for minimum tenure of three years, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already served at present place of posting for more than eight years, competent authority ought to have made detailed inquiry before passing impugned order. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, order dated 01.05.2025 (Annexure P-2) is quashed and set-aside with the direction to respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner afresh, in light of observations made hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two weeks. If need be, respondents are at liberty to transfer an employee with longer stay and thereafter appropriate order with regard to petitioner’s posting at nearby station may also be passed. 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. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 21, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)