IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.1202 of 2011. Decided on: June 1,2011. Kashmir Singh Verma …….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another …….Respondents. ________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr.Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.R.M. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Ms.Sunita Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Justice V.K. Ahuja,J.(oral): The petitioner is aggrieved by the transfer order Annexure P-3, vide which Respondent No.2 Shri Chaman Lal Sharma, Assistant Professor (Painting), has been transferred from RKMV, Shimla to Government Degree College, Solan vice the petitioner. 2. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. Replies have been filed. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is Lecturer in Fine Arts and he has been posted against the post of Lecturer (Sculpture) and that the private respondent is not competent to hold the post to which he has been transferred. The private respondent has been posted in the same capacity as the petitioner, vide the impugned order. It is for the Head of Department concerned to consider the question as to whether the respondent is competent or not to be posted in place of petitioner and it is not for this Court to consider this question and pass orders. Moreover, the petitioner has already filed a representation, in which it was not specified in detail that respondent No.2 was not competent to be posted in place of the petitioner. The petitioner has already spent over 9 years at his 2 present place of posting and the Department has transferred him after he has completed the normal tenure of three years. 4. The petitioner shall file a detailed representation to respondent No.1, alongwith the copy of this judgment, the copy of the writ petition and the replies filed by the respondents as also any other documents which he feels necessary to substantiate his case. Respondent No.1 shall consider the said representation and shall pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. The petitioner is at liberty to file the representation within two weeks and the order, as above, shall be passed by respondent No.1 within another one month. Needless to say that the petitioner has challenged the competency of respondent No.2 to hold the post, therefore, respondent No.2 shall also be given an opportunity of hearing before deciding the representation of the petitioner. 5. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Dasti copy. June 1, 2011 (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (tilak) Judge.