2025:HHC:4185 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2917 of 2025 Date of Decision: 03.03.3035 _______________________________________________________ Rohit Gupta …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Motta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Since representation dated 19.11.2024 (Annexure P-2) having been filed by the petitioner, thereby requesting for his transfer from present place of posting i.e. Government High School, Puccatala Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh to some other station is not being considered, he is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein for following main reliefs:- “(a). That the respondents may kindly be directed to transfer the petitioner from present place of posting i.e. Government High School Puccatala Chamba, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:4185 District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh to any one station mentioned in para-5 supra or in representation; (b) That the respondent may kindly be directed to consider representation of the petitioner in time bound manner as per law and policy.” 2. It is averred in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit that the petitioner was initially appointed as TGT (Non- Medical) on contract basis vide office order dated 17.11.2021 and since then he has been working in Government High School, Puccatala Chamba, District Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. Though, services of the petitioner were subsequently regularized on 16.07.2024, but yet thereafter his prayer to transfer him from the present place of posting is not being considered. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General states that though petitioner does not have any right to seek transfer to a particular station, but prayer, if any, made on behalf of the petitioner for transfer shall be considered in accordance with law. 3 2025:HHC:4185 4. Once, it is not in dispute that Clause 10 of the transfer policy provides for minimum tenure of three years at one station, petitioner herein, who has admittedly completed his normal tenure of three years at present place of posting, prayer made on his behalf for transfer to some other station deserves to be considered by the competent authority. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, 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 pending representation dated 19.11.2024(Annexure P-2) 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 hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 03, 2025 (shankar)