IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4427 of 2011. Date of decision: 24.08.2011 ___________________________________________________ Het Ram …. Petitioner. Versus State of HP & Ors. ….. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. AG with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. AG for respondents No.1 to 4. Respondent No.5 already ex parte. ______________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral). 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged his transfer from Government Primary School, Bairti to Government Primary School, Matlor. 2. The respondents alongwith their reply have annexed an application purported to be signed by the petitioner, in which he has agreed to get himself transferred on mutual consent to the aforesaid school. ___________ Whether the Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment Yes. 2 3. The petitioner has filed rejoinder and in the rejoinder he submits that though the signatures on the said application dated 3.5.2011 appear to be his, but he had never moved such an application. The petitioner virtually is not denying the signatures on the application. Once the petitioner has not denied the signatures, it is for him to explain how his signatures were obtained on the said application. 4. The version of the petitioner is that this may have been a blank signed paper given by him which has been used by the private respondent. This is a highly disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in writ proceedings. The petitioner has completed his normal tenure and therefore, the petition is rejected. However, if the petitioner has not filed the aforesaid application, he is at liberty to file appropriate proceedings against respondent No.5 before the appropriate forum. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge August 24, 2011. (Krn Guleria)