IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19901 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Babita 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. Sat Prakash, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents- State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Language Teacher at Government High School, Bhaled u/c Government Senior Secondary School Darini, Education Block Rait, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of order dated 26.09.2025(Annexure P-4) passed by Director, School Education, Himachal Pradesh, whereby representation filed by the petitioner in terms of order dated 27.08.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 13753 of 2025 for transfer under 5% inter-district quota, came to be rejected on the ground that more than 20 posts of Language Teachers are lying 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 vacant in District Kangra and in case, petitioner is transferred at this juncture, studies of more than 251 students would suffer. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner, which are duly supported by an affidavit, reveals that by way of CWP No. 13753 of 2025, titled Babita Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others petitioner approached this Court seeking direction to the respondents to consider and decide her case for transfer under 5% inter-district quota. This Court vide order dated 27.08.2025 directed the competent authority to decide the pending representation of the petitioner in terms of notification dated 20.11.2021, wherein provision has been made for inter-district transfer. Though, in terms of order passed by this Court, competent authority considered the representation of the petitioner but rejected the same on the ground that at present 20 posts of Language Teachers are lying vacant in District Kangra and in the event of representation filed by the petitioner is being allowed, studies of more than 571 students studying in the school concerned would suffer. 3. 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. Mr. Kahol, states that 3 transfer cannot be claimed as a matter of right, rather it is the sole prerogative of an employer, who as per requirement can post an employee at a particular station. He states that since more than 20 posts of Language Teachers are lying vacant in District Kangra, it may not be possible at this stage to accede to the request of the petitioner for inter-district transfer, rather in that situation, studies of the students studying in the school concerned would adversely affected. 4. Though, having carefully perused the reasoning assigned in the impugned order dated 26.09.2025 passed by Director, School Education, Himachal Pradesh., this Court sees no reason to interfere in the same and as such, same is upheld, however, having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already completed more than five years in District Kangra, coupled with the fact that notification dated 20.11.2021, issued by the Government itself provides for inter-district transfer under 5% quota, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation after completion of academic session, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks without being influenced by its earlier order dated 26.09.2025. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, 4 shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 17,2025 (shankar)