IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7132 of 2025 Decided on: 18th November, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vinod Kumar Dhoulta …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Sakshi Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Heard. 2. Petitioner is serving as Subject Matter Specialist (Horticulture) in the respondent-Horticulture Department. His grievance is to the notification dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure P-II), whereunder, he had been transferred from SMS Hort. Rajgarh to SMS Hort. Dharamshala vice 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 respondent No.4. For impugning transfer, petitioner had taken two-fold grounds:- 2(i). The impugned transfer had been ordered only on the basis of D.O. Note No.180666 issued at the instance of respondent No.5, an Ex-MLA. 2(ii). The petitioner had completed only eight months of tenure at his present place of posting at the time of issuance of the impugned notification, whereby he had been transferred from Rajgarh to Dharamshala, which is more than 300 kilometers from his native place. Taking note of above grounds urged for the petitioner, vide order dated 01.05.2025, operation of the impugned notification was stayed. Consequently, the petitioner and respondent No.4 are serving at their respective places, i.e. at Rajgarh and Dharamshala, respectively. 3. Respondents No.1 to 3 have filed reply. The reply does not dispute the fact that the petitioner was promoted as Subject Matter Specialist (Horticulture) on 30.07.2024 and transferred as such at Rajgarh. That being the position, it has to be held that the petitioner has not completed his normal tenure at the present station. The reply also does not dispute petitioner’s allegations of his 3 having been transferred from Rajgarh to Dharamshala on the basis of a D.O. Note issued by respondent No.5. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 has also not disputed the above factual position. 5. In view of the facts not in dispute, the petitioner has made out a case for interference with the impugned transfer order. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned notification dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure P-II) is quashed and set aside. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua November 18, 2025 Judge Mukesh