Vijay Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

2025:HHC:14125

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.7975 of 2025 Date of Decision: 15.05.2025

_____________________________________________________________________ Vijay Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents:Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State.
__________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J .(Oral)_

¶5

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated nil issued under the signatures of Director, School Education, Himachal Pradesh, whereby representation filed by the petitioner, in terms of order/judgment dated 28.03.2025 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 7784 of 2024 titled as Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. , came to be rejected, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid order and direct the respondents to transfer him to one of the vacant stations, as indicated in the representation.

¶6

Petitioner, who is serving as Lecturer (Computer Science)

¶7

in the respondent-Eduction Department, being aggrieved and

¶8

2

¶9

dissatisfied with office order dated 31.07.2024, whereby he came to be transferred from Government Senior Secondary School Kuthera, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, to Government Senior Secondary School Charna, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, approached this Court by way of CWP No. 7784 of 2024, alleging therein that he has been transferred within a short span of one year & four months. Besides above, petitioner also alleged that his transfer has been effected on the basis of DO note mentioned in the petition.

¶10

Respondents, while filing reply to the afore petition, specifically apprised this Court that petitioner is posted within a radius of 15 Kms of Hamirpur for the last seven years. Taking note of reply filed by the respondents, afore writ petition came to be disposed of with a direction to respondent No 2 to take fresh call in the matter of transfer of the petitioner and issue appropriate orders in that regard in accordance with law as per applicable Transfer Policy within two weeks. Petitioner herein filed a fresh representation (Annexure P-3) , which ultimately came to be rejected vide impugned order dated 09.05.2025 (Annexure P-4) . In the afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid order.

¶11

Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vinod

¶12

3

¶13

Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that though posts of Computer Lecturers at stations indicated in the representation are/were lying vacant, but yet Director, School Education, Himachal Pradesh, for no cogent and convincing reason proceeded to reject the representation filed by the petitioner and as such, order being not in conformity with the earlier judgment dated 28.03.2025 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 7784 of 2024, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶14

While making this Court peruse impugned office order (Annexure P-4), Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that though petitioner had indicated as many as four schools, where the vacancies were available, but yet respondents failed to post the petitioner against any of those vacancies and solely for the reason that he had approached competent Court of law against the impugned transfer order, proceeded to reject the representation.

¶15

To the contrary, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that while examining representation, it came to be apprised to the competent authority that one outsource faculty was also working in Government Senior Secondary School Kuthera, Hamirpur with a student enrollment of 89. However, the post of Lecturer (SN) Computer Science is lying vacant at Government Senior Secondary School Charna, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, where

¶16

4

¶17

no outsource faculty is working and enrollment of student is 30. He submitted that on account of non-joining of the petitioner at a transferred station, students are suffering continuously. He further submitted that since petitioner has remained posted within a radius of 15 Kms of Hamirpur for more than six years, there is no justification to consider his request of cancellation of transfer or adjustment at a convenient station.

¶18

Though, Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that impugned transfer order was issued on the basis of DO note, but once it is not in dispute that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at present place of posting, there appears to be no reason for this Court to take note of aforesaid aspect of the matter. Moreover, this Court finds that after issuance of impugned transfer order, which was issued one year back, petitioner has not joined till date, as a result thereof, students studying at transferred station are suffering for no fault of them. Though this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order and as such, same is upheld, but having taken note of the fact that impugned transfer order nowhere reveals stations stated to be lying vacant, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within a period of three days, praying therein for

¶19

5

¶20

adjustment at a nearby station on account of adverse family circumstances, which in turn shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of one week. 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 taking note of observations made hereinabove as well as Transfer Policy, which enables an employee to seek cancellation of transfer or adjustment at a convenient station on account of adverse family circumstances. Till the time, representation, as detailed herein above, is not decided in terms of instant order, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at transferred station in terms of impugned transfer order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶21

May 15, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge

Vijay Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar v. 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

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Poonam Sharma Vs the State of Hp and Others

Suman Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Others

Jagdish Chand Vs the State of Hp and Others

Kapil Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sarita Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Others