IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12571 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ajay Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Ms. Shivangi Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, 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 is aggrieved of order dated 24.07.2025 (Annexure P-6) issued by the Director, School Education, Himachal Pradesh, whereby representation having been filed by the petitioner, in terms of judgment dated 20.03.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 3927 of 2025, whereby direction came to be issued to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner in light of adverse family circumstances, came to be rejected. 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 Ms. Shivangi Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that though pursuant to afore order passed by this Court, petitioner submitted representation citing therein reasons for cancellation of transfer/adjustment at a convenient station, but yet respondents, while passing impugned order dated 24.07.2025, failed to take note of adverse family circumstances of the petitioner. 3. Having carefully perused averments contained in the representation filed by the petitioner in purported compliance of order dated 20.03.2025 vis-à-vis order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the respondents, in terms of aforesaid order passed by this Court, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent/competent authority has acted in a hot haste manner and no attempt has ever been made by the him to verify the correctness of the ground taken by the petitioner for seeking his transfer/adjustment at a convenient station. Afore authority on the basis of the fact that since at present 38 students are studying in the Class, it may not be feasible to transfer the petitioner to soft area, because in that event studies of students, who are studying at present, shall be seriously affected, rejected the representation. 3 4. In view of the above, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that impugned order dated 24.07.2025 is not tenable, being totally non-speaking and nowhere deals with the grounds raised by the petitioner in his representation. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 24.07.2025 (Annexure P-6) is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner afresh strictly in terms of order passed by this Court in CWP No. 3927 of 2025 as well as observation made hereinabove expeditiously, preferably within three weeks. 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 August 04, 2025 (Sunil)