IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16459 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.10.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rajat Bhardwaj …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Mamta Garg, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Shastri Teacher, at GHS Fatchwal, District Una, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking direction to respondents to consider and decide his pending representation dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure P-4), whereby prayer has been made to transfer him from District Una to District Sirmaur under 5% inter-district quota on account of the fact that petitioner has already completed five years of posting in District Una. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Kahol fairly states that 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 pending representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. 3. Since it is apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner that he has already completed five years of posting in District Una, coupled with the fact that notification dated 20.11.2021 (Annexure P-3) provides for transfer from one district to other district after his/her having completed five years in one district under 5% inter-district quota, this Court sees no impediment in issuing directions to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner. 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 the direction to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four 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 thereupon taking note of notification dated 20.11.2021, which certainly enables an employee to seek transfer from one district to another district under 5% inter-district quota, after his/her having completed five years in one district. 3 In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of along with pending application(s), if any. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 17, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)