IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14495 of 2025 Date of Decision: 08.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Lata Thakur …….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. Pawan K. Sharma, 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 is aggrieved of order dated 01.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by Director, School Education, Himachal Pradesh, whereby representation having been filed by the petitioner in terms of order dated 29.07.2025 passed in CWP No. 10117 of 2025, titlted Lata Thakur vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, came to be rejected. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the Director, School Education, Himachal 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Pradesh decided the representation of the petitioner in most mechanical manner without verifying “whether there is any teacher with longer stay at a stations pointed out by the petitioner in the representation or not?”. 3. Though, having carefully perused order impugned in the instant proceedings, this Court finds no illegality in the same and as such, same is upheld. However, having taken note of the fact that recently on account of promotion of number of TGTs to the post of Lectures, number of posts of TGTs have fallen vacant in the cadre of TGTs, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation within a period of two days, indicating therein vacant stations, where she can be adjusted, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority 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. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 08,2025 (shankar)