Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 24101 (HP)

JATINDER KUMAR v. THE STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER

CWP/13945/2025 · 2025-08-29

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13945 of 2025 Date of Decision: 29.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Jatinder Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Goldy Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Though, having carefully perused order dated 18th July, 2025, passed by Director, School Education, Himachal Pradesh, whereby representation, having been filed by the petitioner in terms of order dated 9.4.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 5253 of 2025, came to be rejected on the ground that there is no vacant post available at stations indicated by the petitioner, coupled with the fact that in the event of petitioner being transferred from present place of posting to other station, studies of more than 185 students would suffer, this Court sees no justification to interfere in the impugned 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 order and as such, same is upheld. However, having taken note of the fact that recently number of TGTs have been promoted to the post of Lectures, as a result thereof, number of posts of TGTs are fallen vacant in the cadre of TGTs, this Court reserves liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation within a period of two days indicating therein stations, where he can be adjusted, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of two weeks. 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. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 29,2025 (shankar)