Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On: October 13 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And ... on 13 October, 2023
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No. 7719 of 2023
Decided on: October 13, 2023
________________________________________________________
Seema Kumari ........... Petitioner
.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others .... Respondents
________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anuja Mehta, Advocate.
For the respondents :
Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar
and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional
Advocates General with Mr. Ravi
Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General,
for respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Nemo for respondent No.3.
________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 30.9.2023
(Annexure P-1), issued by Director Higher Education, Himachal
Pradesh, whereby petitioner herein, who is working as a Lecturer
(Mathematics) has been ordered to be repatriated from DIET Kangra
Dharamshala (on secondment basis) to her parent department and
posted at Government Senior Secondary School Khargat, Chamba
vice respondent No.3, petitioner has approached this court in the
instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside aforesaid order.
2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in
the petition and further canvassed by Ms. Anuja Mehta, learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the transfer order has been effected
solely with a view to adjust respondent No.3, ignoring the fact that the
husband of the petitioner is posted as a Medical Officer at Dr. Rajindra
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Prasad Government Medical College, Tanda and in the event of
transfer order being enforced, the entire family of the petitioner would
be adversely affected.
.
3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while
appearing for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 states that since the year
2018, petitioner is working at Dharamshala, as such, no illegality can
be said to have been committed by the respondents, while ordering her
repatriation/transfer to the school in question.
4. Having taken note of the fact that the petitioner has completed
department,
r to
normal tenure at present place of posting at Dharamshala and vide
impugned transfer order, she has been repatriated to parent
there appears to be no justification for this Court to
interfere in the matter, however, having taken note of the fact that the
husband of the petitioner is posted as a Medical Officer at Dr. Rajindra
Prasad Government Medical College, Tanda and children of the
petitioner are studying in class IX and XII respectively, coupled with the
fact that the petitioner has already filed a representation (Annexure P-
2) to the Director Higher Education, this court deems it fit to dispose of
the petition at hand, by directing the respondents to consider and
decide the representation (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioner, for her
adjustment at a suitable place, expeditiously, preferably within a period
of two weeks, strictly in terms of Comprehensive Guiding Principles
wherein admittedly a provision has been made to accommodate an
employee, on the ground of couple case as well as adverse family
circumstances.
5. Till the time, representation (Annexure P-2) filed by petitioner is
decided by the competent authority, she shall not be compelled to join
at the transferred station.
.
The petition stands disposed of in the afore terms, alongwith all
pending applications.
(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
October 13, 2023
Vikrant
r to
