IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP. No. 3314 of 2010. Date of Decision : February, 21,2011. Asha Sharma. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. and others. Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No. For the petitioner. Mr.Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent 1 to 3 : Mr.P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. For respondent-4. Mr.Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J(Oral). The petitioner challenges his transfer vide Annexure:P-3 on various grounds. It is undisputed before me that the first transfer order of the petitioner Annexure:P-1 was passed on 29th January, 2010. The petitioner was transferred from G.P.S. Rathol to G.P.S.Mira-Masit (Balh). The order incorporates that the transfer has been made in order to adjust one Bimla Devi, J.B.T. at the place where the petitioner was posted. This is clear from the noting in the remarks column which says that the transfer of Bimla Devi is without TTA. In 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes. 2 compliance of this order, the petitioner joined at G.P.S.Mairamasit (Balh) on 3rd February, 2010. The joining report is Annexure:P-2. Abruptly, thereafter another order of transfer is passed on 14th June, 2010 where again the petitioner was transferred from G.P.S.Meramasit (Balh) to G.P.S.Sayuri (Drang-1) in order to adjust respondent No.4 Sonu Kumari. The order again reveals that this respondent was not granted any TTA etc. since the transfer was made at her request. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents. The State has filed its reply justifying the transfer on a number of grounds but without specifying as to the policy, if any, which has been formulated to adjust transfers made on request. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submits that the transfer was necessitated by the fact that her father-in-law and mother-in-law are not keeping good health and she has to look after her two daughters. The grounds set out therein require consideration by the administrative authority. Merely adjusting one employee against the other unless both have consented, would not meet the criteria on reasonableness. I do not find any reason on the record to shunting the petitioner at two places at the request of some other teachers. The request of respondent No.4 to be adjusted at a place where her in-laws are residing would also require sympathetic consideration by the authorities but that would not mean that the petitioner can be subjected to repeated transfers. In these circumstances, Annexure:P-3 is quashed and set aside. It will be open to the State to adjust respondent No.4 in a 3 place where her in-laws are residing. The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Interim order shall stand vacated. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. February 21, 2011(R)