IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15557 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.09.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Narender Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajat Kumar, 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, for the respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein, who at present is working as JBT at GPS Kotlu, Education Block Karsog, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved by order dated 01.07.2025 (Annexure P-6), passed on the representation filed by the petitioner in terms of order dated 30.05.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.9051 of 2025, whereby direction was issued to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner for transfer under 5% inter district quota after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel representing the petitioner is that while passing impugned order dated 01.07.2025, competent authority failed to take note of adverse family circumstances of the petitioner, rather competent authority, simply taking note of number of posts lying vacant in District Mandi, proceeded to reject his representation. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, specifically invited attention of this Court to order dated 30.05.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.9051 of 2025 to state that there was no direction, if any, to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of adverse family circumstances, rather direction was issued to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner under 5% inter district quota. He submitted that since 668 posts of JBT are lying vacant in District Mandi and at present there are only two teachers at GPS Kotlu, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected. 4. Having carefully perused impugned order dated 01.07.2025 juxtaposing direction contained in order dated 30.05.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.9051 of 2025, there appears to be merit in the afore contention of learned Additional Advocate General. Though there was only direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner under 5% inter district quota, but since on account of huge vacancy of teachers in District 2 Mandi, respondents have not found favour with the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner under 5% inter district quota, no illegality can be said to have been committed by them. Transfer, if any, under 5% inter district quota cannot be claimed as a matter of right, rather same depends upon availability of vacancy as well as other administrative exigencies. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the aforesaid impugned order dated 01.07.2025 (Annexure P-6), as such, same is upheld. However, petitioner is always at liberty to file representation for redressal of his grievance on the ground of adverse family circumstances, if any, which shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. September 25, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3