( 2025:HHC:42928 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15006 of 2025 Decided on: 11.12.2025 Ashok Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others .…Respondents ……………………………………………………………………………… Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Sikander Bhushan and Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocates General for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. The petitioner is serving as Trained Graduate Teacher (Arts) in respondents-Education Department and as such belongs to State Cadre. On 07.05.2025 (Annexure P-1), respondents issued an office order transferring him from Government Senior Secondary School(GSSS), Kathiana, District Hamirpur to GSSS, Toba, District Bilaspur. Petitioner’s transfer was ordered vice respondent No.3, who was brought in petitioner’s place of posting from GSSS, Toba, District Bilaspur. Petitioner complied with the office order and on 10.06.2025 joined at the transferred station. On 11.06.2025, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 ( 2025:HHC:42928 ) petitioner preferred representation (Annexure P-2) to respondent No.2 against the aforesaid transfer order. Three months later, he instituted present writ petition on 11.09.2025 seeking quashing and setting aside of the office order dated 07.05.2025. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that impugned order was issued only on the basis of a D.O note of respondent No.4 at the instance of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 had not completed his normal tenure of three years at GSSS, Toba, District Bilaspur at the time of issuance of impugned office order. Pursuant to the orders passed in this writ petition from time to time, respondents No. 1 & 2 have filed reply to the writ petition and also placed on record instructions dated Nil October, 2025 and December, 2025. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. Consideration 4(i) Respondents have given following incumbency position of the petitioner and of respondent No.3:- “Incumbency of petitioner, Sh. Ashok Kumar, (TGT Arts):- Sr. No. Place of posting Dates 1. GSSS Bagwara (HMR) 06.01.2016 to 09.07.2020 2. GSSS Chowk (MND) 10.07.2020 to 30.11.2021 3. GSSS Kathiana (HMR) 30.11.2021 to 08.05.2025 3 ( 2025:HHC:42928 ) 4. GSSS Toba (BLP) 10.06.2025 to till date Incumbency of respondent, Sh. Pankaj Raj Sharma, (TGT Arts):- Sr. No. Place of posting Dates 1. GSSS Dalgaon (SML) 30.08.2018 to 14.10.2022 2. GSSS Toba (BLP) 14.10.2022 to 08.05.2025 3. GSSS Kathiana (HMR) 08.05.2025 to till date” From the above extracted incumbency position, it is evident that:-  Petitioner had remained posted at GSSS, Kathiana, District Hamirpur w.e.f. 30.11.2021 to 08.05.2025;  Petitioner had completed much more than normal tenure at GSSS, Kathiana, District Hamirpur at the time of issuance of impugned order transferring him from the said place;  Petitioner who admittedly belongs to District Hamirpur, had previously also served for about four years at District Hamirpur in GSSS, Bagwara w.e.f. 06.01.2016 to 09.07.2020. Having completed much more than his normal tenure at GSSS, Kathiana, District Hamirpur, petitioner’s transfer from the said place cannot be said to be unlawful. 4(ii) The ground raised for opposing the impugned transfer is that same had been processed on the basis of a D.O note issued by respondent No.4 at the instance of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3’s incumbency position reflects that he had served in District Shimla at GSSS, Dalgaon for normal tenure w.e.f. 30.08.2018 to 14.10.2022. He thereafter, remained posted at 4 ( 2025:HHC:42928 ) GSSS, Toba, District Bilaspur w.e.f. 14.10.2022 to 08.05.2025 i.e. for about two years six months and twenty five days. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have not denied in their reply about impugned transfer having been effected on the basis of D.O note. However, a plea has been taken that petitioner himself took the benefit of D.O Note No.Secy./CM-EO202/2017-DEP-C-344781 dated 24.11.2021 and therefore cannot now take the plea of impugned order having been issued on the basis of D.O note. The copy of said D.O note has been placed alongwith both sets of instructions and read as under:- “Hon’ble Chief Minister has approved the following:- Sh. Ashok Kumar, TGT(A) may be may be transferred from GSSS Chowk, Distt. Mandi to GSSS Kathiana, Distt. Hamirpur vice Sh. Vipender Bhardwaj, TGT(A) who may be transferred to GSSS Giara Gran, Distt. Hamirpur vice Sh. Manoj Kumar, TGT(A) who may further be transferred to GSSS Chowk, Distt. Mandi on consent basis (fresh consent may be obtained first) & without TTA/JT in condonation of short stay less than two years in favour of Sh. Ashok Kumar, TGT (A) in condonation of short stay less than one year in favour of Sh. Manoj Kumar TGT(A) & in relaxation of ban on transfers. Director of Elementary Education, H.P. Shimla is requested to take necessary action accordingly and report compliance.” Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the D.O. note dated 24.11.2021 was not issued at the instance of the petitioner; The same was issued at the behest of one Sh. Manoj Kumar, who wanted to be transferred to GSSS, Chowk, Distt. Mandi; Since under the said D.O. note, Sh. Manoj Kumar was being proposed to be brought to the petitioner’s place of posting at GSSS, 5 ( 2025:HHC:42928 ) Chowk, Distt. Mandi and petitioner was in turn to be transferred to GSSS, Kathiana, Distt. Hamirpur, there being not much distance between two stations, the petitioner did not object to this transfer nonetheless, it was not at the instance of the petitioner. The D.O. note dated 24.11.2021 extracted above, was issued for effecting transfer of Sh. Manoj Kumar and Sh. Ashok Kumar (petitioner) on consent basis. Even assuming that petitioner did not give any such consent in writing, the fact remains that he did not object to his transfer from GSSS, Chowk, District Mandi to GSSS, Kathiana, District Hamirpur despite the fact that he had not completed his normal tenure at GSSS, Chowk, District Mandi. The only logical inference that can be deduced from this, is that transfer order suited the petitioner and therefore, by complying the same and joining at the transfered station at GSSS, Kathiana, petitioner gave his implied consent to his such transfer. It is not the case of the petitioner that he ever represented to the respondents against his transfer from GSSS, Chowk, District Mandi on the ground of either the same having been issued on the basis of D.O note or on the ground of not having completed his normal tenure at GSSS, Chowk, District Mandi. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner therefore, also has to be construed to be an indirect & implied beneficiary, if not direct beneficiary of the D.O note. Further, petitioner has already completed much more than his normal tenure at GSSS, Kathiana, therefore, he was liable to be transferred from the said place. Respondent No.3 had also almost completed his normal tenure at 6 ( 2025:HHC:42928 ) Toba, District Bilaspur. Weighing all these factors, I do not find any good ground in the instant case to interfere with the impugned transfer inter se between petitioner and respondent No.3. As noticed previously, the impugned transfer has been given effect to & petitioner joined at the transferred station in June, 2025. For the forgoing reasons, no case for interference in impugned order, is made out. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge December 11, 2025 (yogesh)