IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 7630 of 2010 Date of decision: 04.01.2011 ________________________________________________________________ Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma. .....Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & another. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). Rejoinder to the reply on behalf of respondent No. 1 filed. Copies supplied. 2. Both the petitioner and private respondent No. 2 are Chief Medical Officers. The petitioner is aggrieved by Notification dated 27th November, 2010, Annexure P-4, whereby he has been transferred from Una to Dharamshala as Medical Superintendent vice respondent No. 2. 3. The records reveal that the petitioner was promoted as CMO vide Notification dated 10.03.2010, Annexure P-1, and was ordered to be posted as CMO Lahul & Spiti. However, according to him, taking into consideration his family circumstances, instead of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. ...2... Lahul and Spiti he was posted as CMO Una, vide the same Notification, Annexure P-1. The further case of the petitioner is that vide Notification dated 15.05.2010, Annexure P-2, respondent No. 2 was promoted as CMO and posted as such at Lahul & Spiti at Kelong. However, since he did not obey these orders, he was relieved from his duties vide Office Order dated 07.07.2010, Annexure P-3. Now, strangely enough, he has been again posted as CMO Una vide the aforesaid Notification dated 22nd November, 2010, Annexure P-4. 4. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction that subject to petitioner making a representation alongwith a copy of this judgment to respondent No. 1 within a fortnight, the said respondent shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter within the next fortnight in accordance with law and justice by exploring the possibility of the petitioner being adjusted suitably taking into consideration his family circumstances and the fact that the petitioner had already served in the tribal area, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and respondent No. 2, if so advised. Till then interim order dated 03.12.2010 to continue. 5. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any. Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 4th January, 2011 (virender)