IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13969 of 2025 Date of Decision: 30.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rakel Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sat Prakash, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Lecturer Political Science on SMC basis at Government Senior Secondary School, Sarar, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 21.08.2025 (Annexure P-5), whereby Department, while effecting promotion of certain TGTs to the post Lecturers, posted person namely, Anju Bala Sharma, respondent No.5, in place of the petitioner at Government Senior Secondary School Sarar, District Chamba, 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. Sat Parkash, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that in terms of Notification dated 21.09.2022 (Annexure P-4), regular/contract teachers shall be posted preferably against the clear cut vacancies, where SMC teachers are not in position. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that number of posts of Lecturers (Political Science) are lying vacant in various schools, but yet with a view to displace the petitioner, respondent- Department in violation of notification dated 21.09.2022, posted respondent No.5 in place of petitioner in the school, as detailed hereinabove. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate General states that bare perusal of Notification dated 21st September, 2022 (Annexure P-4), clearly suggests that there is no bar, if any, for the department to post/promote any teacher in place of TGTs/ Lecturers appointed, if any, by the SMC, rather first attempt would be made to post regular teachers against clear cut vacancies, but if clear cut vacancies are not available, regular hand is to replace SMC appointed teacher. He states that since there is nothing to 3 suggests that respondent No.5 has not been posted against clear cut vacancy, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while transferring/posting private respondent No.5 in place of petitioner, who admittedly has been working on SMC basis. 4. True, it is that petitioner herein has been working on SMC basis, but careful perusal of Notification dated 21.09.2022 (Annexure P-4), clearly reveals that regular/contract teachers shall be posted preferably against the clear cut vacancies, where the SMC teachers are not in position. It is quite apparent from the representation dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure P-6) filed by the petitioner that there are number of clear cut vacancies where respondent No.5 could be transferred/posted, but yet she has been posted in the place of petitioner, which does not appear to be permissible in light of Notification dated 21st September,2022. 5. Since petitioner has already filed representation dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure P-6), this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the same, with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the representation dated 22.08.2025 (Annexure P-6) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of ten days, taking note of vacancy position, as detailed in the representation. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, in the event of vacancy, if any, available, respondent No.5 shall be 4 given posting against vacant post, so that petitioner is not disturbed, but in case no clear cut vacancy available, department would be at liberty to pass appropriate order. Till the time representation of the petitioner is not decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be relieved, if not already relieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 30,2025 (shankar)