Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 08.07.2025 vs State Of H.P. And Another on 8 July, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2025:HHC:21807
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.10843 of 2025
Date of Decision: 08.07.2025
.
_______________________________________________________
Shashi Kumar .......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. Vivek Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma,
Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi
Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.
_______________________________________ _____________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):
Petitioner herein is aggrieved of order dated 04.07.2025
(Annexure P-1) passed by Director, School Education, Himachal
Pradesh, whereby representation, having been filed by the petitioner
in terms of order dated 21.05.2025, passed by Coordinate Bench of
this Court in CWP No.8376 of 2025, titled Shashi Kumar Vs. State of
H.P. and Anr., came to be rejected.
2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been
highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vivek Thakur,
learned counsel representing the petitioner is that impugned order is
not in compliance with the mandate contained in the judgment dated
21.05.2025, because adverse family circumstances, as indicated by
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2025:HHC:21807
the petitioner in his representation, has not been taken into
consideration by the competent authority, while deciding his
.
representation. Besides above, above named counsel, while making
this Court peruse representation having been filed by by the petitioner
before the Director, School Education, states that though in the
Schools indicated by the petitioner in his representation, there were
number of Teachers with longer stay, but yet representation, having
been filed by him, has been rejected on the ground that at present,
post of TGT (Arts) is not lying vacant in the Schools mentioned in the
representation.
3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed
to be passed, this Court sees no sees no necessity to call for reply on
behalf of respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi
Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Chauhan, while
making this Court peruse impugned order dated 04.07.2025
(Annexure P-1), states that there is no illegality in the same because
no post of TGT (Arts) was lying vacant in the Schools, as indicated by
the petitioner. He further submitted that otherwise also, an employee
cannot seek transfer as a matter of right.
4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties
and perused material available on record, vis-a-vis reasons assigned
in the impugned order dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), this Court is
2025:HHC:21807
persuaded to agree with Mr. Vivek Thakur, learned counsel
representing the petitioner that once petitioner had stated in his
.
representation that some of the Teachers in the Schools indicated in
the representation are having longer stay, competent authority ought
to have made an effort to verify afore fact before rejecting the
representation filed by the petitioner. Impugned order itself suggests
that petitioner had requested for his transfer either to GMS Ropa E/B
Gopalpur, GMS Khundla u/c GSSS Baldwara, GMS Thana Chowki
u/c GSSS Trifalghat, District Mandi, and while doing so, he has
specifically stated in the representation that in case actual stay of
some of the Teachers in afore School is counted by clubbing their
previous stay within the radius of 30 kilometers, there would be many
with longer stay, but it appears that Director, School Education,
merely taking note of the fact that at present 51 students are studying
at GSSS Saintari, where the petitioner is working, proceeded to reject
the representation.
5. No doubt, it is the sole prerogative of an employer to post
an employee at a particular station, but once Transfer Policy,
formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, provides for
minimum tenure of three years at one station, coupled with the fact
that petitioner has already completed more than five years at the
present station, Director, School Education, ought to have called for
2025:HHC:21807
complete record to ascertain the correctness of the submission made
in the representation of the petitioner.
.
6. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit
in the present petition and accordingly the same is allowed. Impugned
order dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and set-aside.
Respondents are directed to decide the representation of the
petitioner afresh, taking note of observations made hereinabove
expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three weeks. Needless to
say, authority concerned, with a view to give complete effect to the
orders passed by this Court, would not hesitate to transfer an
employee from the Schools concerned, if he/she has already
completed normal tenure of posting.
In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of
along with pending application(s), if any.
p`
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
July 08, 2025
(Rajeev Raturi)
