IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.879 of 2026 Date of Decision: 09.01.2026 _______________________________________________________ Nisha Rani …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Pawanish Kr. Shukla, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as JBT at Government Primary School Hatli Jamwalan, Tehsil Nurpur, Education Block Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings seeking direction to respondents to consider and decide her pending representation (Annexure P-4), whereby she has prayed for her transfer from District Kangra to District Hamirpur, under 5% inter-district quota. 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. Mr. Panwar fairly states that pending representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. 3. Since it is apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner, which are duly supported by affidavit, that petitioner has completed more than three years at the present place of posting, which falls in District Kangra, coupled with the fact that Notification dated 20.11.2021 enables female employee to seek transfer from one District to other District, subject to her completing three years of service in one District, this Court sees no impediment in issuing directions to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner. 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 the direction to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four 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 appropriate order taking note of the observations made hereinabove. 3 In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of along with pending application(s), if any. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge January 09, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)