IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3467 of 2011 Date of decision: 14.07.2011 Jagat Singh Tomar …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ... Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Ms. Anu Tuli, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. B.C. Negi and Mr. Raj Negi, Advocates, for respondent No. 4. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): The petitioner who is posted as JBT teacher has challenged his transfer order (Annexure P-2), vide which he has been transferred from G.P.S. Nihalgarh to G.P.S. Dhanla. The petitioner has already spent a period of three years at Jamniwala and after condoning his stay to Nihalgarh, which was within a distance of 8 K.M., he was allowed to continue at Nihalgarh. The petitioner has spent a period of about one year and three months at Nihalgarh and prayer made by the petitioner is that since short distance has already been condoned by the department, he should be allowed to continue for a period of three years at Nihalgarh. This plea cannot be accepted and once department had condoned the short distance and had allowed 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the petitioner to continue at Nihalgarh, it does not mean that he is entitled for another three years at this place, which is 8 K.M. from the previous place of posting. However, the case of the petitioner is that his son is studying in 10th Class and classes have already started and, therefore, it will not be in the interest of the petitioner’s son that the petitioner should be transferred in the mid term. The petitioner is entitled to make a representation to respondent No. 2 within a period of ten days from today and respondent No. 2 shall pass an appropriate order keeping in view the grievances put up by the petitioner in his representation and the representation shall be decided by respondent No. 2 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the representation. 2. As informed by learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No. 4 has already joined at the new place of posting and the post is not vacant at present and, therefore, he is allowed to continue at his present place of posting at Nihalgarh, till his representation is decided by respondent No. 2. 3. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. ( V.K. Ahuja ), July 14, 2011 Judge (BSS) 3