IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13947 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.10.2025 _______________________________________________________ Kanta Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. N.K. Tomar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Principal at Government Middle Senior Secondary School, Rajgarh, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 27.08.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby she has been transferred from afore school to Government Senior Secondary School, Bhatgarh, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh against vacancy on administrative grounds. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. N.K. Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that impugned transfer order is in violation of transfer policy because petitioner has not been permitted 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 to complete her normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, rather she has been transferred within a period of 14 months. Besides above, ground of couple case has been also taken by stating that husband of the petitioner is also working at Government Senior Secondary School, Phagoo, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh and as such, in the event of transfer, she ought to have been posted at some nearby place. 3. Pursuant to the notice issued in the instant proceedings, respondent No.1 and 2 have filed reply, wherein it has been stated that a complaint has been received in the respondent-Department from the Bachpan Bachao Sangharsh Samiti Rajgarh, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh against the petitioner, which has been further inquired by the Deputy Director(Quality Control) Sirmour. Since during inquiry, it was found that petitioner has grossly failed to discharge her statutory, moral and administrative responsibilities in the matter involving a minor girl student under stringent provisions of the POCSO Act, 2012, it is not in the interest of justice of students studying in afore school if the present petitioner is posted there. Besides above, it has been further stated in the reply that prior to petitioner’ posting at present school, she remained posted within the radius of 12 to15 KM w.e.f. March, 2008 to May 2018 as Lecturer and thereafter, she was transferred to Government Senior Secondary 3 School, Phagoo, District Sirmour, which is at a distance of 12 to 15 Km from afore station. 4. Though, petitioner was posted at Government Senior Secondary School, Rajgarh District Sirmour in the month of July, 2024, but fact remains that prior to her afore posting at present school of posting, she was posted at Government Senior Secondary School, Phagoo, which is at a distance of 12 to 15 KM. 5. Since petitioner remained posted within the radius of 12 to 15 KM since 2007, coupled with the fact that on the basis of inquiry her posting at present place of posting has not been found justifiable, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order. 6. Though, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that impugned transfer order is punitive in nature and as such, same is not sustainable because before awarding punishment, disciplinary proceedings ought to have initiated against the petitioner. Though, there appears to be merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, but once impunged transfer as well as reply filed by the respondents clearly suggest that impugned transfer order has been not issued on account of complaint, if any, rather same appears to have been issued primarily on the ground that petitioner remained posted within the radius of 12 to 15 Km for more 4 than 18 years, there appears to be no reason to accept afore contention raised at the behest of the petitioner. True it is that there is a mention of inquiry in the reply, but there is nothing to suggest that impugned transfer order has been effected on that sole ground, rather transfer of the petitioner has been ordered in the interest of the students studying in the school as well as petitioner for whom, it may not be desirable to work in a hostile circumstances. 7. Consequently, in view of the above, though this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order dated 27.08.2025 (Annexure P-1) and as such, same is upheld. However, having taken note of the fact that in past petitioner has already served sub cadre area i.e. Bhatgarh, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the petition with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within a period of one week, praying therein for her transfer/adjustment at a convenient station, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of one week. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate order, taking note of the fact that in past petitioner has already served in sub cadre area i.e. Bhogdhar, as such, she can be posted at some other station near to Government Senior Secondary School Phagoo, where 5 husband of the petitioner is working as Principal. Till the time, representation, if any, filed by the petitioner within a period of one week, is not decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station. Interim order, if any, is vacated. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 13,2025 (shankar)