IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12675 of 2025 Date of Decision:06.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Praveen Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein had laid challenge to order dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by Director School Education, Himachal Pradesh, whereby he has been transferred from Government Senior Secondary School, Tanehar, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh to GMBSSS, Kotkhai, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh by clubbing his previous place of posting tenure vice Smt. Neelam Kumari, respondent No.3. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that petitioner has been 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 transferred within a span of one month and as such, impugned transfer order passed in violation of transfer policy, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. To the contrary, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents, states that bare perusal of impugned order dated 23.07.2025 reveals that though petitioner was posted in the month of June, 2025 at Government Senior Secondary School, Tanehar, District Mandi, but before his posting at afore school, he remained posted within the radius of 30 KM for more than three years and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while transferring him vice respondent No.3. While referring to judgment dated 20.03.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 3919 of 2025, titled Neelam Kumar, TGT(Arts) vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, Mr. Panwar, states that otherwise also order dated 23.07.2025 laid challenge in the instant proceedings has been passed in compliance of the mandate contained in afore judgment. He states that since Smt. Neelam Kumari, TGT(Arts) had completed normal tenure of posting at GMBSSS, Kotkhai, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh and no post of TGT(Arts) is lying vacant in school of choice of the petitioner, Director rightly transferred the petitioner from Government Senior Secondary School, Tanehar, 3 District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh to GMBSSS, Kotkhai, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. 4. Having regard to the nature of the prayer and ordered proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents. 5. Since it is not in dispute rather quite apparent from the impugned order dated 23.07.2025 that prior to petitioner’s posting at Government Senior Secondary School, Tanehar, District Mandi, he remained posted within the radius of 30 KM, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondent by transferring the petitioner from present place of posting to Kotkhai by clubbing his previous service. 6. Though, Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, learned counsel for the petitioner, attempted to argue that clubbing is not permissible, however, such plea of him deserves outright rejection in terms of the mandate contained in the judgment dated 06.06.2025 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2734 of 2024, titled as Monika Katna vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, Mr. Panwar, wherein it has been categorically held that clubbing of previous stay is permissible for transfer of an employee in Education Department. 4 7. Though, for the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court sees no illegality or infirmity in the impugned transfer order dated 23.07.2025 and as such, same is upheld, however having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already filed representation dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P-2) to the competent authority, praying therein for his adjustment at a convenient station on account of adverse family circumstances, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of ten days. Ordered accordingly. 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, taking note of transfer policy. Till the time representation is not decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transfer station. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 06,2025 (shankar)