IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3163 of 2025 Date of Decision: 06.03.3035 _______________________________________________________ Sharda Devi …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sahil Thakur, Proxy counsel vice Ms. Anuja Mehta, 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): Petitioner herein has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider her prayer for transfer on mutual basis. 2. Though, having taken note of the fact that petitioner, who at present is working as a Lecturer (Hindi) at Government Senior Secondary School, Gopalpur, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, has not completed her normal tenure of posting at the present place of posting, coupled with the fact that it is the sole prerogative of the employer to post an employee, there appears to be no justification to 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 entertain the present petition. However, having taken note of the averments contained in the petition as well as documents annexed therewith, perusal whereof reveals that petitioner is physically handicapped and there is provision in the transfer policy for mutual transfer, 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 (Annexure P-2) of the petitioner, in a time bound manner. 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 she still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 06, 2025 (shankar)