Virender Singh Vs the State of Hp and Another

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Pawanish K. Shukla, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State.

¶10

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

¶11

Petitioner herein, who at present is working as TGT (NM) at GHS Kotgarh, District Shimla. Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved by order dated 04.11.20225 passed by Director. School Education, Himachal Pradesh, whereby representation having been filed by the petitioner, in terms of order dated 25.09.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.15519 of 2025, came to be rejected on the ground that he has joined at GSSS Kotgarh, District Shimla. Himachal Pradesh on 17.09.2025 and having short stay.

¶12

2

¶13

Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, learned vice counsel representing the petitioner. is that this Court, vide order dated 25.09.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 15519 of 2025, had specifically directed the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner taking note of the ground of couple case, but respondents, while passing impugned order, have failed to consider the aforesaid ground, as a result thereof, representation has been rejected.

¶14

Having carefully perused order dated 25.09.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 15519 of 2025, this Court finds that prior to filing of the petition at hand, petitioner had approached this Court in the writ proceedings, laying therein challenge to impugned transfer dated 04.09.2025, whereby petitioner was transferred from GMS Churari u/e GSSS Hawan. District Bilaspur, to GSSS Kotgarh, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, but this Court having noticed period spent by the petitioner at GMS Churari u/c GSSS Hawan, District Bilaspur, though refused to intervene with the impugned transfer order, but reserved liberty to the petitioner to file a representation to the competent authority for cancellation/adjustment at a convenient station on the ground of couple case. Since wife of the petitioner is also working in the Education Department and at present, she is

¶15

3

¶16

posted GSSS Sikroha District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, petitioner though, in terms of aforesaid order passed by this Court filed representation, but same has been rejected, vide order dated 04.11.2025.

¶17

Since bare perusal of aforesaid order passed in purported compliance of the judgment dated 25.09.2025 nowhere suggests that authority concerned considered the representation of the petitioner on the ground of couple case raised on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is persuaded to quash and set aside the afore order. Afore authority is directed to decide the case of the petitioner afresh strictly in terms of observations made hereinabove as well as in order dated 25.09.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No.15519 of 2025 expeditiously, preferably within three weeks from today. 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. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶18

Judge

¶19

(Sandeep Sharma),

¶20

December 01, 2025 (sunil)

Virender Singh v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virender Singh v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Usham Lata Vs the State of Hp and Others

Deepshikha and Others Vs Ashish Kumar Kohli

Arti Bhadwal and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Pania Ram Vs the State of Hp and Another

Lobh Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Nidhi Thakur Vs the State of Hp and Others