2026:HHC:23020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5846 of 2026 Decided on: 18.06.2026 Shri Jeevan Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2. : Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner herein has assailed the transfer order Annexure P-1, dated 17.04.2026, in terms whereof, he has been transferred from Government Degree College Rampur to Government Degree College, Banjar (Kullu) against the private respondent. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner, before his posting at Rampur, was posted at Reckong Peo, which is a tribal area and he was transferred to Rampur after he had completed his normal tenure at Reckong Peo. Learned Counsel further submitted that the impugned transfer order stands passed without permitting the petitioner to complete his normal tenure at 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:23020 Rampur. 3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the transfer order has been passed in public interest and it is not as if only the petitioner has been transferred. He argued that in fact many transfers were ordered in terms of the impugned transfer order, which demonstrates that it was a well thought of exercise in public interest. 4. Learned Counsel for the private respondent while endorsing the contentions of learned Additional Advocate General has further submitted that the petitioner for most of his career has served at Rampur only and has no right to serve there henceforth. He has further argued that the private respondent remained posted at Banjar for about 8 years and it is in these circumstances that his request for transfer to Rampur was accepted. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and as well as learned Additional Advocate General and learned Counsel for the private respondent and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has now completed more than two years at the present place of posting and further as it could not be disputed that earlier also, he had served at Rampur for a considerable period of time, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order. 6. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition be disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make a representation for his adjustment against a post which has become vacant at Rampur after rationalization. 3 2026:HHC:23020 7. On the request of learned Counsel for the petitioner, this petition is disposed of without interfering with the impugned transfer order but with the observation that in case any such request is made by the petitioner, the Authority shall pass appropriate orders thereupon within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt thereof. Till then, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the kind of leave due to him. Interim order stands vacated forthwith. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 18, 2026 (narender)