IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3657 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.03.3035 _______________________________________________________ Sonu Ram …….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. Rajat Kumar, 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 petitioner herein, who is working as JBT at GPS, Gochar, Education Block Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, has completed more than five years at present place of posting, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-4) for transfer under 5% District quota. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that petitioner herein was appointed as JBT on contract 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 basis in the year, 2019. Though, initially petitioner joined his services at GPS Dhanola Sasota, Education Block Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, but thereafter in the year, 2022, he was transferred from afore school to GPS Gochar, Education Block Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. Since petitioner has already completed five years in District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, he has filed representation to the competent authority, seeking transfer from District Bilaspur to District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh under 5% District quota, but since afore prayer is not being considered/decided, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant proceedings. 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. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 4. 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 competent authority to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner 3 expeditiously, preferably within a period of three 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, taking note of Notification dated 20th November 2021, Clause C(1)whereof specifically provides for inter-district transfer on completion of five years service. 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 17, 2025 (shankar)