Kareri vs 4 Consequently
2021 Latest Caselaw 4052 HP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                  ON THE 23rd DAY OF AUGUST, 2021




                                                               .
                                  BEFORE





          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN





                                      &
                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA

                 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4747/2021

    BETWEEN:

    ARCHANA AGGARWAL

    W/O SH. SUNDER AGGARWAL


    RESIDENT OF K.B. DHARAMSHALA
    DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
    PRESENTLY WORKING AS PRINCIPAL
    GOVERNMENT SR. SEC. SCHOOL



    KARERI, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.                      ....PETITIONER

    (BY MS. ANJALI SONI VERMA, ADVOCATE)




    AND





    1.    STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
          THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY(EDUCATION)
          TO THE GOVT. OF HIMACHAL PRADESH





          SHIMLA­171002.
    2.    DIRECTOR
          HIGHER EDUCATION
          HIMACHAL PRADESH
          SHIMLA­171001.                ....RESPONDENTS

    (BY SH. ASHOK SHARMA, A.G. WITH SH. RAJINDER DOGRA,
    SR. ADDL. A.G., SH. VINOD THAKUR, SH. HEMANSHU
    MISRA, SH. SHIV PAL MANHANS, ADDL. A.GS. AND SH.
    BHUPINDER THAKUR, DY.A.G.)
    ___________________________________________________________________




                                              ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:55:51 :::CIS
                                        2


                This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble




                                                                .

    Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, passed the following:

                ORDER

The instant writ petition has been filed for the grant of

following substantive relief:

"that the respondents may kindly be directed to adjust the petitioner in Govt. Sr. Sec. School Sarah, District Kangra, which is likely to fall vacant due to retirement of Principal

by issuing a writ of mandamus"

2 It would be noticed that the entire thrust of the

petitioner seeking transfer is based on personal hardship(s).

3 It is more than settled that the courts are extremely

slow in directly interfering in the personal hardship cases. The

clear implication of the almost consistent directions given in the

cases is that the transferee could make a representation to the

competent authority. Reference in this regard can conveniently

be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Rajendra Roy vs Union Of India and anr. (1993) 1 SCC 148.

4 Consequently, the instant petition is disposed of with

a direction to the respondents­State to treat the instant petition

as representation on behalf of the petitioner; and consider and

decide the same within a period of two weeks. Pending

.

application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

For compliance, list on 7.9.2021.

Copy dasti.

                                              (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
                                                      Judge




    23.8.2021
     (pankaj)
                      r           to              (Satyen Vaidya)
                                                       Judge