IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12049 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Zangmo Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. C.D.Negi Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as JBT at GPS Brua, Education Block Kalpa, District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved by order dated 18.07.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby she has been transferred from afore school to GPS Baturi, Education Block Kalpa, District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh. 2. It has been fairly admitted at the behest of the petitioner that he has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but challenge has been laid to the impugned transfer order on the ground that earlier her transfer to afore station was cancelled 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 on medical grounds, but yet again she has been sent on deputation to the same station with a view to adjust the private respondents. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant petition, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar, states that since petitioner has already completed normal tenure at present place of posting, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while passing impugned order. He states that petitioner cannot dictate terms, rather it is the sole prerogative of the employer to transfer an employee at a particular station. 4. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit, this Court finds that prior to petitioner’s posting at GPS Surcho, Education Block Nichar, she was transferred to GPS Baturi, Education Block Kalpa, District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh, but such order was subsequently cancelled on the request made by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since petitioner now stands relieved from present place of posting as such, has no objection in going to a station, which is in the vicinity of 10 to 20 Kms from the present place of posting i.e. GPS Karchham, Education Block Kalpa, District Kinnaur, Himachal 3 Pradesh against vacancy. He states that since one post is lying vacant at GPS Karchham, Education Block Kalpa, District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh, present petition can be disposed of by reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the respondents with further direction to the respondents to decide the same expeditiously. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority for her adjustment at a convenient station within two days, which shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably within two weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders taking note of Transfer Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Till the time, representation, as detailed herein above, is not decided in terms of instant order, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at transferred station in terms of impugned transfer order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 25, 2025 (Sunil)