IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7129 of 2010 Decided on : 13.12.2010. Narender Kumar ..…Petitioner. Versus State of H.P Through and others. .… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. For the Respondents No.1 to 3. : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General. For the Respondent No.4 : Mr. M.C. Verma, Advocate. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petitioner who is working as Lecturer (History) in School cadre and was posed in Government Sr. Secondary School, Mehla, District Chamba, H.P, has been transferred to Government Sr. Secondary School, Sunara, District Chamba, H.P, vide order dated 11.11.2000, Annexure P-1 to adjust private respondent No.4 who was earlier under transfer from Government Sr. Secondary School, Chamba to Government Sr. Secondary School, Sunara. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the petitioner has filed the present petition mainly on the ground that his wife who is also working as Teacher in the respondent-department has been 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No, 2 recently transfered to Government Primary School, Hardaspura, District Chamba, H.P in April, 2010 being a couple case. However, the arrangement has been disturbed by the impugned transfer, whereby the wife of the petitioner has been transferred to a far away place, thereby adversely affecting their small school going children. 2. On the above averments the petition has been filed on the following prayer :- “ That the impugned order of transfer has been passed by the respondent No.2 just to harass the petitioner in an arbitrary manner, the impugned order has neither been passed in public interest nor due to administrative exigencies but it has been passed just to accommodate the respondent No.4. The impugned order is unsustainable to the scrutiny of this Hon’ble Court and deserves to be quashed and set aside.” 3. Respondents No.1 to 3 are yet to file reply. However, learned Deputy Advocate General has brought on record a communication dated Nil of December, 2010 addressed to the learned Advocate General, Himachal Pradesh by the Director, Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, that the petitioner had completed his normal tenure at Mehla and that private respondent No.4 has since joined there. 4. Almost similar stand has been taken by respondent No.4 in her reply. 5. In view of the above, in case the petitioner still has any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal 3 position, he may certainly point out the same by way of appropriate representation before respondent No.1/competent authority within a fortnight along with copy of this judgment and the said respondent/competent authority shall decide the same in accordance with law and justice by exploring the possibility to adjust the petitioner at an appropriate place, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and private respondent No.4. Interim order dated 16.11.2010 shall continue till then. 6. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending CMP(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 13th December, 2010 CS