IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.21127 of 2025 Date of Decision: 31.12.2025 _________________________________________________________ Naveen Kumar Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Nikhil Katwal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ____________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein is aggrieved of order dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure P-3), whereby the representation filed by him in terms of judgment dated 01.07.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 10483 of 2025 came to be rejected on the ground that at present there is no vacancy available at the station of choice as pointed out by the petitioner. 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 the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. Learned Additional Advocate 2 General states that since petitioner in his representation had indicated only one school i.e. Government Senior Secondary School Dhawal, Mandi, and at the relevant time, there was no vacancy available in the aforesaid school, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondent, while doing the needful in terms of judgment dated 01.07.2025. Learned Additional Advocate General further states that petitioner can be directed to file fresh representation, indicating therein any other vacant stations, enabling the respondents to consider his request for transfer on the ground of couple case. 3. Though, having gone through the order dated 25.07.2025 vis-à-vis mandate contained in the judgment dated 01.07.2025 passed in CWP No. 10483 of 2025, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld, however, having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already filed fresh representation (Annexure P-8), thereby giving details of vacant stations, where petitioner can be adjusted, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P-8) 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 being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate 3 order taking note of the observations made hereinabove. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. December 31, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (shankar) Judge