Himachal Pradesh High Court
Praveen Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 6 August, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.12675 of 2025
Date of Decision:06.08.2025
.
_______________________________________________________
Praveen Kumar .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr.
B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals,
with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
General.
____________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Petitioner herein had laid challenge to order dated
23.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by Director School Education,
Himachal Pradesh, whereby he has been transferred from
Government Senior Secondary School, Tanehar, District Mandi,
Himachal Pradesh to GMBSSS, Kotkhai, District Shimla, Himachal
Pradesh by clubbing his previous place of posting tenure vice Smt.
Neelam Kumari, respondent No.3.
2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been
highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Sanjay
Dalmia, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that petitioner has been
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
transferred within a span of one month and as such, impugned
transfer order passed in violation of transfer policy, deserves to be
.
quashed and set aside.
3. To the contrary, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional
Advocate General, who has put in appearance on behalf of the
respondents, states that bare perusal of impugned order dated
23.07.2025 reveals that though petitioner was posted in the month of
June, 2025 at Government Senior Secondary School, Tanehar,
District Mandi, but before his posting at afore school, he remained
posted within the radius of 30 KM for more than three years and as
such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the
respondents, while transferring him vice respondent No.3. While
referring to judgment dated 20.03.2025 passed by this Court in CWP
No. 3919 of 2025, titled Neelam Kumar, TGT(Arts) vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh and others, Mr. Panwar, states that otherwise
also order dated 23.07.2025 laid challenge in the instant proceedings
has been passed in compliance of the mandate contained in afore
judgment. He states that since Smt. Neelam Kumari, TGT(Arts) had
completed normal tenure of posting at GMBSSS, Kotkhai, District
Shimla, Himachal Pradesh and no post of TGT(Arts) is lying vacant in
school of choice of the petitioner, Director rightly transferred the
petitioner from Government Senior Secondary School, Tanehar,
District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh to GMBSSS, Kotkhai, District
Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
.
4. Having regard to the nature of the prayer and ordered
proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply
on behalf of the respondents.
5. Since it is not in dispute rather quite apparent from the
impugned order dated 23.07.2025 that prior to petitioner's posting at
Government Senior Secondary School, Tanehar, District Mandi, he
remained posted within the radius of 30 KM, no illegality can be said
to have been committed by the respondent by transferring the
petitioner from present place of posting to Kotkhai by clubbing his
previous service.
6. Though, Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, learned counsel for the
petitioner, attempted to argue that clubbing is not permissible,
however, such plea of him deserves outright rejection in terms of the
mandate contained in the judgment dated 06.06.2025 passed by
Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2734 of 2024, titled as
Monika Katna vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, Mr.
Panwar, wherein it has been categorically held that clubbing of
previous stay is permissible for transfer of an employee in Education
Department.
7. Though, for the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court
sees no illegality or infirmity in the impugned transfer order dated
.
23.07.2025 and as such, same is upheld, however having taken note
of the fact that petitioner has already filed representation dated
30.07.2025 (Annexure P-2) to the competent authority, praying
therein for his adjustment at a convenient station on account of
adverse family circumstances, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the
present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and
decide the representation dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P-2) of the
petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of ten days.
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
transfer policy. Till the time representation is not decided by the
competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the
transfer station. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
1. p
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
August 06,2025
(shankar)
