IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.18898 of 2025 Decided on: 16th December, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Narender Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vivek Singh Attri and Ms. Sakshi Thakur, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner is serving as Lecturer (School New) English. He has filed this writ petition assailing his transfer ordered on 25.11.2025 (Annexure P-II), whereby he has been transferred from GSSS Beolia, District Shimla to GSSS Thaila, District Shimla. Transfer has been ordered vice one Ms. Pinki Sharma, who has been brought in place of the petitioner from GSSS Thaila. 2. The first and foremost factor to be noticed in this petition is that Ms. Pinki Sharma, who has been 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 brought in place of the petitioner, has not even been impleaded as party to the writ petition. The relief claimed in the petition would certainly affect her. The petition, therefore, suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties. Secondly, as apprised by learned counsel, the petitioner has joined at the transferred station in terms of the impugned office order. There is no document on record of the case to show that the petitioner even represented to the respondents before complying with the transfer order. The impugned transfer has already been given effect. Petitioner and Ms. Pinki Sharma have joined at their respective places pursuant to the impugned office order. Hence, this writ petition even otherwise has become only academic exercise. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, still insists that petitioner’s transfer from GSSS Beolia to GSSS Thaila in District Shimla is not in consonance with law as the petitioner has not been allowed to complete his normal tenure at Beolia. The second ground urged was that petitioner’s wife is suffering from Stage-III Cancer, undergoing medical treatment at PGI, Chandigarh and her treatment is to go on till 27.03.2027. Learned counsel for the petitioner apprised that petitioner’s wife is also serving in the respondent-Education 3 Department and is posted at GSSS Beolia, i.e. where the petitioner was serving. That petitioner’s wife is continuing to perform her duties and is not on medical or any other leave. It was also apprised that the petitioner has his house at Kasumpti, Shimla, where he is residing with his family. 4. To a query of the Court as to whether the petitioner and his wife would like to avail the concession available to couples in their next transfer, the answer was in the negative. In terms of the impugned office order, the petitioner had completed his requisite stay within a radius of 30 kilometers at GSSS Beolia. No doubt, petitioner was posted at GSSS Beolia on 25.08.2023, but prior to that, he remained posted at GSSS Ghanahatti w.e.f. June, 2022, which is stated to be within a distance of 30 kilometers and therefore, is liable to be computed as stay at one place in terms of the applicable office circular issued by the respondents. Petitioner belongs to State cadre, but as per the incumbency position given in CMP No.30488 of 2025, he has served only in District Shimla. 5. Taking all the above facts into consideration, no case for interference with the impugned office order dated 25.11.2025 (Annexure P-2) is made out at this stage. This writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is accordingly 4 dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 16, 2025 Judge Mukesh