IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6020 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.11.2010 Chander Kanta ……….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ………Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 3. Per Surjit Singh, J. Petitioner had been working as JBT Teacher in Government Primary School, Nalti, since June 2007. She was transferred to Government Primary School, Johad-Sundri (Jhandutta), vide order dated 17.6.2010, Annexure P-1. She filed a writ petition challenging the order. That writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 24.7.2010, copy Annexure P-2, with a direction that in case the petitioner makes representation within two weeks, respondent No. 2 would decide the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law and while deciding such representation, said respondent will take into 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 consideration the places where posts were lying vacant. Such places were to be pointed out by the petitioner. 2. Petitioner in compliance with the aforesaid direction of this Court, made a representation, which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 8th September, 2010, copy annexure P-3. Petitioner has again approached this Court by means of the present writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the record. According to the petitioner, vacancies were lying at two places, namely Kathalag and Massaur, when she made representation on 2.8.2010 pursuant to the aforesaid order of this court but the respondents filled those vacancies after the making of the representation and before passing the impugned order. I find no material on record in support of this contention. Respondents in their reply have stated that no posts were vacant at the aforesaid two places. 4. Moreover petitioner has already completed her normal tenure of three years at Nalti from where she has been shifted. In fact, she had completed her tenure when the order of transfer, Annexure P-1 was passed. Therefore, she cannot be heard to say that her transfer is bad or contrary to the guidelines and the policy of the Government. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one post of JBT teacher is lying vacant in Block Resource 3 Coordinator Office at Gehrevi and that the petitioner can be adjusted against that post. Writ petition is disposed of with a direction that petitioner shall be relieved from Nalti School pursuant to the transfer order, Annexure P-1 and in case, after joining at her new place of posting Government Primary School, Johad-Sundri (Jhandutta), she makes representation for adjustment in the office of Block Resource Coordinator, respondent No. 2 shall consider that representation and decide the same according to the Government instructions. 6. Salary of the petitioner shall also be paid from the date of transfer upto date in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions. 7. With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. ( Surjit Singh ), J. November 15, 2010, (vs)