IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 3575 of 2011 Decided on: 16.6.2011. __________________________________________________________ Anita Kumari. … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others. … Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. For respondents No.1 to 3: Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. for the respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral). The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure P-2, order of transfer, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Govt. Primary School, Surara to Govt. Primary School, Meydi. 2. In the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 3, it is stated vide para 3 as follows:- “That in reply to this para it is submitted as per the information received from respondent No.3 that the petitioner appointed on contract basis on 21.4.98 and posted at Govt. Primary School, Chari, Education Block Mehla-1 and thereafter petitioner has been transferred to GPS, Rakh and joined her duties on 6.7.98. Petitioner remained on deputation w.e.f. 5.9.98 to 3.6.99 at GPS Chontra (Block Chamba-1 town) and after renewal of contract, petitioner has joined her duties on 8.7.99 at GPS Rajera Block Mehla-II within a radius of 6 k.m.. It is further submitted that the petitioner is working at her present place of posting i.e. GPS, Surara w.e.f. 15.2.2010, before joining at GPS, Surara, she remained mostly time near about five years on deputation at GPS, Chontra, Block Chamba-1, which is only 6 k.m. away from present place of posting.” 2 3. It is further stated in the reply that the petitioner remained posted within the radius of six kilometers for the last five years. In that view of the matter, we do not think that another opportunity should be given to the petitioner for serving notice to the private respondent. It is also reported that the place to which the petitioner is transferred is not a far away place. 4. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation to 3rd respondent as and when any vacancy is available in any place which is convenient and of the choice of the petitioner and in that event, the petitioner’s matter will be duly considered by the 3rd respondent. 5. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice. (Justice V.K. Sharma) June 16, 2011. Judge. (cr/virender)