IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 5487 of of 2010. Decided on: 19.11.2010. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sunil Singh. ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …..Respondents. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the petitioner : Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral). The petition is filed with the following prayer:- “(a). That a writ of certiorari may very kindly be issued thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned Annexure P-4 as same is not applicable to the category of the petitioner. (b). That a writ of mandamus may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to complete his normal tenure at present place of posting as is provided in the contract agreement.” 2. It is submitted that the petitioner is a teacher on contract basis. There are other teachers in the school as mentioned in Annexure P-3, who are working on regular basis, who can be transferred to any other regular vacancy, whereas the petitioner cannot be transferred being a contract teacher. It is also submitted that the petitioner is entitled for regular appointment having been selected through Subordinate Selection Board. The learned Deputy Advocate General pointed out that it is not a case of transfer and it is a case of transfer of the petitioner along with post 2 pursuant to the rationalization policy. It is also submitted that steps have been taken only to save the petitioner from being retrenched for want of vacancy. 3. In view of the submissions made by the petitioner above, it will be open to the petitioner to approach 2nd respondent in which case the 2nd respondent will consider and decide the matter by passing appropriate orders. Needful shall be done within a period of one month from the date of production of copy of judgment along with copy of writ petition by the petitioner with appropriate representation which shall be filed within two weeks from today. The interim order passed by this Court shall continue till that time. 4. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice V.K. Sharma), Judge. November 19, 2010. (cr/kck)