IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14361 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sarita Devi …….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. Manish 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): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as JBT at GCPS, Tujhar, Education Block, Patta Mehlog, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking direction to the respondents to transfer her from the present place of posting to one of the stations of her choice as mentioned in para-10 of the petition as well as representation (Annexure P-4 colly) under 5% inter-District quota. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Ravi Chauhan learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 3. Having carefully perused averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court finds that though petitioner herein has not completed her normal tenure of posting in District Solan, but on account of her marriage, prayer has been made to transfer her from District Solan to District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh. Notification dated 20.11.2021, clearly reveals that JBT teacher after her marriage can seek transfer from one District to another District under 5% inter-District quota and for that purpose, no minimum tenure is required in one District. If it is so, there appears to be no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-4 colly) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of three 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, taking note of 3 Clause 2© of notification dated 20.11.2021. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 05,2025 (shankar)