IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4069 of 2009 Decided on : June 24, 2010 Roop Singh …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Lovnesh Kanwar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of his transfer, Annexure P-1, dated 22nd October, 2009, whereby he, in his capacity as Drawing Master, has been transferred from Government High School, Sainji to Government Senior Secondary School, Kutachi (both places in District Mandi). 2. Petitioner’s main contention is that respondent No.5 Saroj Kumari, who has been posted in his place, is a Para Teacher and she cannot be accommodated, in the matter of posting, at the cost of a regular teacher, which the petitioner is. It is also stated by him that he is due to retire within two years and, therefore, under the Transfer Policy, he has a right to be posted at the place of his choice. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. Respondents have filed separate replies, in which it is stated that the Government, vide Office Memorandum, dated 13th August, 2009, copy Annexure R-5/2, has taken a decision to transfer Para Teachers, who have completed five years tenure at one place, on need basis wherever required, on administrative grounds. It is also stated in the reply that the petitioner having completed five years service at Sainji was required to be transferred, in accordance with the Transfer Policy of the Government and because his transfer would have resulted in a vacancy of Drawing Master in the School at Sainji, respondent No.5 has been shifted, in accordance with the aforesaid Policy decision Annexure R-5/2. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Decision Annexure R-5/2 has not been assailed by the petitioner, on any ground whatsoever. Therefore, there should be no reason to say that the decision is not lawful or valid. Now, in the light of decision Annexure R-5/2, Para Teachers can also be transferred, on their completing five years at one place, on need basis. Admittedly, in this case, respondent No.5 had completed five years tenure at Kutachi. Petitioner had also completed normal tenure of three years at Sainji and was, therefore, due for transfer. …3… 6. In view of the abovestated position, no fault can be found with the transfer order Annexure P-1. Consequently, Writ Petition is dismissed. 7. As regards petitioner’s plea that he is entitled to be posted at a place of his choice, on account of his being due for retirement within two years, and that he has already served in sub cadre area and, therefore, he should not have been posted at Kutachi, which is also part of sub cadre area, it is ordered that the petitioner will make a representation to respondent No.2, within 15 days, and in case he makes such a representation, respondent No.2 shall decide the same within three weeks form the date of its presentation, in accordance with the transfer policy/ guidelines, by a speaking order. 8. Writ petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of, as having become infructuous. Copy dasti. June 24, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J