IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.649 of 2026 Date of Decision: 07.01.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Farah Naaz Kazmi …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Another ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Suneet Goel, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Negi and Mr. Vishwas Kaushal, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Petitioner herein, who at present is working as Head of the Department (Mechanical Engineering) at Government Polytechnic, Sundernagar, District Mandi, is aggrieved of order dated 02.01.2026 (Annexure P-3), whereby she has been transferred from afore station to Government Polytechnic, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur. 2. Before notices, if any, could be issued in the instant proceedings, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 05.01.2026 (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner, whereby she has prayed for her adjustment at Sundernagar against vacant post on medical grounds. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he is not averse to afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 4. Since petitioner is left with only one and a half year of service and at present, there is one post, against which she can be adjusted, is lying vacant, this Court sees no impediment in issuing directions to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner, expeditiously. 5. 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 dated 05.01.2026 (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereupon taking note of medical grounds raised at the behest of petitioner. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge January 07, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)