IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15635 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.9.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sunil Kumar …….Petitioner Versus Directorate of School Education … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Dinesh K. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (Non- Medical) at GMS Giankot u/c GSSS Bharoli, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondent to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-9), whereby he has prayed for his transfer from afore station to one of the stations as detailed in the representation on the ground of couple case. 2. Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, who states that 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 since petitioner has not completed normal tenure at present place of posting, he is not entitled to seek transfer, however representation, if any, for transfer on the ground of couple case, shall be considered in accordance with law. 3. True it is that petitioner has not completed normal tenure at present place of posting, but once transfer policy formulated by Government of Himachal Pradesh, enables an employee to seek transfer/adjustment on the ground of couple case, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made in the petition. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with direction to the respondents/competent authority to de- cide the pending representation having been filed by the petitioner (Annexure P-9), expeditiously, preferably, within three weeks. Or- dered 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 a speaking order thereupon taking note of transfer policy on the ground of adverse family circumstances as well as couple case. Pending applications, if any, also stand dis- posed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 26, 2025 manjit