Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16706 (HP)

Sohan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2026-02-25

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2026
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. Notice. Mr. Rajat Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. On his instruction, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General, has also put in appearance on behalf of respondents. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “I. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure P-5 i.e. impugned office order dated 04.10.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 in violation of inter-district transfer policy in the interest of justice and fair play. II. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to order transfer of the petitioner from GPS Gater Centre Bhararighat u/c GMSSS Dhundan, Education Block Dhundan, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P. to any of the schools mentioned below:- (i) GCPS Baryara Education Block Saigaloo, District Mandi, H.P. (ii) GPS Chaloh Education Block Saigaloo, District Mandi, H.P. (iii) GCPS Saletar Education Block Saigaloo, District Mandi, H.P. III. That the respondent may very kindly be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.” 3. The case of the petitioner is that he is serving as a JBT Teacher in District Solan. Initially, he was appointed on contract basis as such in the year 2019 and thereafter, his services stood regularized in the year 2022. According to the petitioner, he submitted a representation in the month of May 2025, for inter-district transfer and in terms of impugned order dated 04.10.2025 (Annexure P-5), his prayer has been rejected by the competent Authority. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that rejection of prayer of the petitioner for inter-district transfer is totally unsustainable, for the reason that the petitioner fulfilled the criteria provided in the Policy for inter-district transfer and further at the place where he was seeking the inter-district transfer, the post was in fact lying vacant. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate General, by referring to the order under challenge, submitted that there is no vested right conferred upon any employee to seek an inter-district transfer, more so, in light of the fact that when an incumbent is appointed to a district cadre post, he is bound to serve the employer within the District. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate General, by referring to the order under challenge, submitted that there is no vested right conferred upon any employee to seek an inter-district transfer, more so, in light of the fact that when an incumbent is appointed to a district cadre post, he is bound to serve the employer within the District. Learned Advocate General further submitted that the order, in terms whereof, the prayer of the petitioner has been rejected, is a self-speaking order and there is no arbitrariness in it. Learned Advocate General argued that in light of the fact that there are more than 363 posts of JBT Teachers lying vacant in District Solan i.e. the parent district to which the petitioner stands appointed, the competent Authority has rightly taken a call not to accept the prayer of the petitioner for inter-district transfer, as the same would amount towards further depletion in the strength of JBT Teachers in District Solan. Accordingly, he prayed that as the present petition has no merit, the same be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Advocate General and having perused the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in the petition. 7. Indeed, in terms of the inter-district transfer policy, there is no vested right conferred upon an employee to seek transfer from one district to another upon his/her whim. This Court concurs with the submission of the learned Advocate General that when an incumbent is recruited to a district cadre post, he/she is bound to serve the employer in that particular district and entertaining the request for an inter-district transfer is a discretion vested with the Authority. 8. Though, this Court would also like to observe that this discretion conferred upon the Authority to effect inter-district transfer, is not to be exercised arbitrarily by the Authority, but herein the reasons which have been spelled out in the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner cannot be termed to be arbitrary. It is mentioned in the order by the competent Authority that in terms of the report received from the Deputy Director of Elementary Education Solan, there are 1813 sanctioned posts of JBT/HTs in District Solan, out of which, approximately 363 posts are lying vacant. It is mentioned in the order by the competent Authority that in terms of the report received from the Deputy Director of Elementary Education Solan, there are 1813 sanctioned posts of JBT/HTs in District Solan, out of which, approximately 363 posts are lying vacant. It is also mentioned in this order by the Authority that inter-district transfer is not a matter of right and teachers can be transferred under the policy based on administrative requirements and in the interest of students. It is further mentioned in the order that considering the significant number of posts lying vacant, according to the request of the petitioner, may adversely affect the academic interest of the students. 9. This Court concurs with the observations which are made by the Authority in the impugned order. In light of the fact that more than 350 posts were indeed lying vacant in District Solan of JBT/HTs, as on the date when the Authority took the call on the representation of the petitioner and as obviously the transfer of the petitioner from District Solan to District Mandi would have further depleted the said strength, which obviously would have an adverse effect on the students studying in the school where the petitioner was serving, the rejection of the prayer of the petitioner, cannot be faulted with. 10. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However, in light of the fact that the rejection of the request of the petitioner by the Authority was in light of the factual circumstances, as were existing when the call was taken by the Authority on the representation of the petitioner, the dismissal of this petition or the rejection of the representation of the petitioner by the Authority shall not come in the way of the petitioner in again approaching the Authorities for an inter-district transfer in future, if so advised. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.