IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13865 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rajeev Kumar …….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. Sanjeev Kumar Motta, Advocate. For the Respondents: 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 by order dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure P-6), whereby representation having been filed by him, in terms of order dated 23.06.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 4124 of 2025, has been rejected on the ground that stations pointed out by the petitioner are not vacant. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Motta, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 representation having been filed by him has been decided in a slip shod manner because no effort whatsoever has been made by the authorities to ascertain “whether any person has already completed normal tenure at stations pointed by him?” He submitted that while filing representation, petitioner had specifically stated that he could be adjusted at GMS Kando Cheyog, u/c GSSS Jamna, District Sirmaur; GSSS Bhalaad; GMS Kaldnyam; GSSS Gangath; GSSS Chalwara, GSSS Behi Pathyar; GSSS Maira; GSSS Rihan (Boys) and GHS Haryan, District Kangra, either against longer stayee or vacancy likely to arise due to upcoming promotion of TGTs to the posts of Lecturers/Head Masters. He submitted that though there are number of teachers, who have already completed normal tenure in afore schools and recently number of teachers have been promoted to the posts of Lecturers/Head Masters, but representation filed by the petitioner has been decided in a routine manner. 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. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Verma, states that orders with regard to the promotion of TGTs to the posts of Lecturers/Head Masters were passed after the disposal of the representation of the petitioner, vide order dated 28.07.2025 3 (Annexure P-6) and as such, there was no occasion, if any, for the authority concerned to take into consideration those stations, which now have become available on account of promotion of certain teachers to the post of Lecturers/Head Masters. He fairly states that now, on account of subsequent developments, representation can be decided afresh. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-a-vis order laid challenge in the instant proceedings, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that authority concerned, without bothering to verify whether there is any longer stayee in the schools indicated by the petitioner, proceeded to reject the representation filed by the petitioner. While filing the representation, petitioner not only named the stations detailed hereinabove, but also requested to be posted at any of the aforesaid stations against a vacancy likely to arise due to the upcoming promotion of TGTs to the posts of Lecturers/Head Masters. There is nothing in the order to suggest that the competent authority, while passing the impugned order, made any effort to ascertain whether there was any employee, who had served for more than normal tenure, rather authority concerned rejected the representation merely on the ground that there was no vacant post. 4 5. Since it is not in dispute that on account of promotions of few teachers to the post of Lecturers/Head Masters, vacancies have arisen, this Court, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation to the competent authority within three days, indicating therein vacant stations/longer stayee, which shall be decided by the competent authority within ten days from today. 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 observations made hereinabove as well as Clause 5.4 of Transfer Policy, which enables an employee to seek transfer from one station to another on the ground of couple case. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 28, 2025 (Sunil)