IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16193 of 2025 Date of Decision: 15.10.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Vijay Laxmi …….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: Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, is aggrieved of order dated 11.09.2025 (Annexure P-2) issued by Director of School Education, whereby representation filed by the petitioner in terms of order dated 12.08.2025 passed in CWP No.13014 of 2025, thereby praying for her transfer from hard/tribal area to soft area has been rejected on the ground that there is no substitute/reliever. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, learned counsel for the petitioner is that since petitioner, who at present is working as JBT at GPS Sarni, Drang-II, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, which is a hard area, has already completed normal tenure of posting and as such, in terms of transfer policy, she is required to be transferred to one of the stations of choice. Since needful, in terms of transfer policy, was not done despite there being representation filed by the petitioner, petitioner 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 approached this Court in CWP No.13014 of 2025 (Annexure P-1), which came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 12.8.2025, thereby directing the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner within three weeks in terms of Transfer Policy formulated by State Government.- 3. Though in terms of directions issued by this Court, competent authority considered the representation of the petitioner but rejected the same on the ground that transfer to a particular place cannot be claimed as matter of choice, rather it is discretion of the State Government to post/transfer any employee anywhere in the District/State, keeping in view the administrative exigencies/conveniences. It is further mentioned in the impugned order that since petitioner is single teacher in the School and there is no substitute/reliever, his representation cannot be accepted. 4. Having regard to nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar states that no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Director of School Education, while passing impugned order because till the time, reliever/substitute is not made available, petitioner herein being single teacher of the School concerned cannot be transferred in terms of request made by her. 5. Since it is not in dispute that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting in hard area coupled with the fact that transfer policy itself enables an employee to seek transfer/posting at soft area, after 3 completion of normal tenure of posting, there appears to be no reason for the respondents to not transfer the petitioner from hard area to soft area that too on the ground that there is no substitute/reliever. Needless to say, in the event of transfer, if any, from hard area to soft area, substitute or reliever is to be provided by the department/Government, but certainly an employee cannot be compelled to live in hard/tribal area beyond the prescribed period of normal tenure on the ground of non-availability of substitute/reliever. 6. True it is that School located in the tribal area/hard area cannot be left without teacher, but duty to provide teacher and adequate staff is of the respondent-State. 7. This Court has been repeatedly advising the State Government to ensure that each and every employee of the State should be posted once in hard/tribal area, but it appears that majority of employees using their influence have been evading their postings in hard/tribal area, as a result thereof, employees who do not have any political backing are being made to work in hard/tribal area for indefinite period. Once transfer policy provides for minimum tenure of three years in hard/tribal area and thereafter, employee concerned can seek transfer to soft area or one of the stations of choice, his/her such right cannot be permitted to be defeated on the ground of non-availability of substitute/reliever, which otherwise in any eventuality is to be provided by the department/Government itself. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and as such, same is allowed and impugned order 4 dated 11.09.2025 (Annexure P-2) is quashed and set aside with direction to authority concerned to decide representation of the petitioner afresh within two weeks, taking note of observation made in this order and pass appropriate orders for posting the petitioner out of hard area are made expeditiously, preferably, within two weeks without there being any condition of reliever. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 15, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)