2025:HHC:34013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15428 of 2025 Decided on: 8th October, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mukesh Lata …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Motta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Even though the respondents have not filed reply, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. Petitioner instituted Mukesh Lata Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2, seeking direction to the respondents to consider her representation for transfer from tribal area on completion of normal tenure of posting to a place of her preference. The writ petition was disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within the indicated 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 CWP No.9075 of 2025, decided on 30.05.2025 2 2025:HHC:34013 timeline. Petitioner’s representation was rejected by the respondents on 17.07.2025 on the ground that in case the petitioner is transferred from her present place of posting, it would adversely affect the studies of 86 students studying in the school in question. Feeling aggrieved against order dated 17.07.2025, petitioner instituted Mukesh Lata Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.3. The writ petition was allowed on 24.07.2025. The impugned order was quashed and set aside with direction to the competent authority to decide the representation of the petitioner afresh keeping in view the provisions contained in the transfer policy, which enables an employee to seek transfer from hard/tribal area to soft area or one of the stations of his choice on completion of normal tenure in the hard/tribal area. Pursuant thereto, petitioner preferred another representation, which was rejected by the competent authority on 17.09.2025. It is in this background the petitioner has instituted this writ petition assailing the order dated 17.09.2025. 3. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, I am of the considered view that no fault can be found in the 3 CWP No.11899 of 2025, decided on 24.07.2025 3 2025:HHC:34013 impugned order dated 17.09.2025 as the petitioner in her latest representation, had made an altogether different prayer that she may be transferred outside the District, whereas, she admittedly belongs to district cadre and is posted in District Chamba. The competent authority, therefore, was within its jurisdiction to reject petitioner’s such request as she did not have any vested right to seek transfer outside district in view of her belonging to a particular district, i.e. District Chamba. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is now ready and willing to furnish a fresh representation for her transfer from tribal area to an area of her preference within District Chamba and therefore, the competent authority be directed to consider the fresh representation intended to be filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. 5. Considering the fact that the petitioner has completed much more than the normal tenure in the hard/tribal area of District Chamba and is now entitled for a posting of her choice in accordance with law, her prayer is accepted. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with direction that in case the petitioner represents to the competent authority for her transfer from the present place 4 2025:HHC:34013 of posting within a week from today, the same shall be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law and applicable policy keeping in view the decisions rendered in Mukesh Lata2 and Mukesh Lata3, within a period of three weeks thereafter. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua October 08, 2025 Judge Mukesh