Poonam Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.7867 of 2025

Date of Decision: 14.05.2025

____________ ___________________________________________ Poonam Sharma …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents

¶5

_______________________________________________________

¶6

Coram:

¶7

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. Kush Sharma and Mr. Abhishek Thakur, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶8

Petitioner herein, who at present is working as JBT in Government Primary School, Lodhwan, Block Indora, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, is aggrieved of impugned transfer order dated 7.5.2025 (Annexure P-2), whereby she has been transferred from the present place of posting to Government Primary School, Napohta, Baijnath, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

¶9

Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner, is that impugned transfer order of the petitioner is in violation of the transfer policy because same has been effected with

¶10

mala fide intent to disturb the petitioner, who had been otherwise

¶11

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2

¶13

discharging her duties diligently from day one. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making this Court peruse impugned transfer order, attempted to argue that bare fact that petitioner has been transferred against vacant post, coupled with the fact that no substitute has been sent at her place, clearly reveals that her transfer has been effected with mala-fide intent because otherwise there was no requirement, if any, to transfer her from the present place of posting to a vacant station. He further submitted that petitioner herein has been transferred to a station where only 16 students are studying and one teacher is already working there, whereas at present place of posting there are more than 82 students and four teachers are working there. He further submitted that there is no road facility available to transferred station and in case petitioner is asked to go and join at transferred station, she will be compelled to walk 6 km per day to reach the school.

¶14

While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that since petitioner has already completed her normal tenure of posting at present place of posting and her past record clearly reveals that she has remained posted in and around present place of posting for years together, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the competent authority, while passing impugned transfer order.

¶15

3

¶16

Since it is quite apparent from the material adduced on

¶17

record that prior to posting of the petitioner at present place of posting, she was posted in and around the school, where she has completed three years, this Court sees no reason to interfere in the impugned transfer order. However, having taken note of the fact that transferred station is located at a distant place and there is no facility of transport, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 8.5.2025 (Annexure P-7) filed by the petitioner for her adjustment at a convenient station expeditiously, preferably within a period of ten days, taking note of observations made in the earlier part of the judgment as well as transfer policy. 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 detailed speaking order thereupon, taking note of transfer policy. Till the time, representation filed by the petitioner is not decided by the competent authority, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at the transferred station in terms impugned transfer order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶18

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶19

May 14, 2025 (shankar)

Poonam Sharma v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poonam Sharma v. the State of Hp and Others

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

Tara Chand Vs the State of Hp and Others

Fateh Singh Vs the Hrtc and Others

Gian Chand Vs the State of Hp and Others

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Suman Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Others

Dhan Bahadur Vs the State of Hp and Others