Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16512 (HP)

Deepak Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2026-04-06

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2026
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. Notice. Mr. Rajpal Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General has also put in appearance on behalf of the respondents on the instructions learned Additional Advocate General. 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by Annexure P-6, order dated 27.01.2026, in terms whereof, the prayer of the petitioner for his transfer from his present place of posting by taking into consideration his total tenure as a teacher in the tribal areas of District Chamba and District Shimla, has been rejected by the Authority. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Shastri teacher on 04.10.2022 and he served as such till 11.03.2024 at Government Middle School Tiari u/c GSSS Holi, Tehsil Bharmour, District Chamba, HP, which is a tribal area. Thereafter, the petitioner sought inter-district transfer to District Shimla on mutual basis. His request was acceded to by the Authority and he was transferred to District Shimla and posted at Government Middle School Kawar, District Shimla, w.e.f. 12.03.2024, which as per the petitioner is defined as the most difficult area as per the transfer policy of the State Government. Learned Counsel thus submitted that in all, the petitioner is serving in tribal areas since 04.10.2022 till date and this aspect of the matter has been ignored by the Authority while rejecting his transfer application. Accordingly, he prayed that the present petition be allowed by setting aside the impugned order and a direction be issued to the respondents to post the petitioner at some other station in District Shimla. 4. On the other hand, learned Advocate General argued that the post of Shastri teacher is a district cadre post. The petitioner applied for and was selected in the cadre of District Chamba against the post of Shastri. Thereafter, on his request, the Department transferred the petitioner from District Chamba to District Shimla on mutual basis. Learned Advocate General submitted that in terms of the policy of the Government in vogue, once an incumbent seeks transfer from one district to another, then he forgoes his seniority in the parent district and for all intents and purposes, he is treated as a fresh incumbent as far as the district to which he stands transferred is concerned. Learned Advocate General submitted that in terms of the policy of the Government in vogue, once an incumbent seeks transfer from one district to another, then he forgoes his seniority in the parent district and for all intents and purposes, he is treated as a fresh incumbent as far as the district to which he stands transferred is concerned. Learned Advocate General further submitted that in the present case, apparently, the adjustment of the petitioner from District Chamba to District Shimla, was on mutual basis and thus, in terms of Annexure P-7, which has been appended with the petition by the petitioner, such a teacher has to serve at the place to which he stands transferred on mutual basis, for a minimum period of three years and if he seeks transfer then h e has to be transferred back to his parent district. Accordingly, learned Advocate General submitted that either way as there is no merit in the present petition, the same deserves outright dismissal. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Advocate General and have also gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 6. It is a matter of record that the petitioner was appointed as a Shastri teacher in District Chamba against a district cadre post. It is also evident from Annexure P-2 that the petitioner after serving in District Chamba for about two years sought his transfer to District Shimla on mutual basis against Shri Anil Kumar. It is also evident from Annexure P-7 appended with the petition, which is a communication addressed by the Secretary Education to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to the Director of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, that teachers who seek transfer on mutual basis from one district to another, shall be transferred to the respective vice versa schools only, and such teachers will not be transferred from that school for a minimum period of three years and if transfer is effected, such teacher shall be reverted back to his parent district. Thus, record demonstrates that the petitioner has not been transferred from District Chamba to District Shimla under 5% quota per se, as is the case made out by the petitioner. Thus, record demonstrates that the petitioner has not been transferred from District Chamba to District Shimla under 5% quota per se, as is the case made out by the petitioner. He has simply been adjusted on vice versa basis from District Chamba to District Shimla, obviously, for a period of three years and thereafter, in terms of Annexure P-7, he is liable to be reverted back to District Chamba, i.e. parent district cadre where he will serve thereafter. Therefore, as per Annexure P-2, transfer order dated 11.03.2024, the petitioner has not been transferred under 5% quota. A perusal of the prayers made in the petition demonstrates that there is no challenge to Annexure P-7. That being so, obviously, Annexure P-7, is binding upon the petitioner and because his case is not a case of transfer from District Chamba to District Shimla, under the 5% quota, obviously, this adjustment has to abide by Annexure P-7 and the petitioner is bound to serve at his present place of posting for a minimum period of three years and thereafter, he cannot seek any adjustment in District Shimla but has to go back to his parent District, i.e. District Chamba and serve there. 7. Though, at this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the reversion will be there only if the incumbent seeks transfer from the school where he or she has been posted within a period of three years but this Court does not concur with him for the reason that when adjustment of the petitioner from District Chamba to District Shimla is not under 5% quota of inter- district transfer, then for all intents and purposes, the petitioner continues to remain the employee in the district cadre of District Chamba only. In fact, this aspect of the matter has been ignored by the Authority also while deciding the representation of the petitioner that as the petitioner has not been transferred per se under the 5% quota, he continues to be the employee of District Chamba cadre. In terms of Annexure P-2, the transfer order of the petitioner, it is clearly mentioned against the names of other teachers that they have been transferred under 5% quota whereas it is not so mentioned against the name of the petitioner. In terms of Annexure P-2, the transfer order of the petitioner, it is clearly mentioned against the names of other teachers that they have been transferred under 5% quota whereas it is not so mentioned against the name of the petitioner. Accordingly, in light of the above discussion, as this Court does not find any merit in this petition and further as this Court does not find any fault with the order passed by the Authority rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for his transfer, this petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.