IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 5477 of 2010. Decided on: 6th September, 2010. Gulam Mohammad. …Petitioner. Versus HP SEB and another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh,, Judge. For the Petitioner : Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayer: “A. That this writ petition may kindly be allowed, writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued and the respondent Department may be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner in a time bound manner and post him at one of station of his choice as per the transfer policy of the State.” 2. It is seen that Annexure P-1, representation is pending before the first respondent. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has only indicated two stations and as per the guidelines the employee has to indicate minimum five stations. The petitioner submits that the two stations are indicated only because of the availability of vacancy and indicating his 2 preference. It is also submitted that at the time of furnishing a copy of the judgment, he will indicate the other stations as well. Therefore, there will a direction to the first respondent to take appropriate action on Annexure P-1 within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition by the petitioner. It is made clear that while taking action, as above, the petitioner shall be accommodated preferably in one of the first two stations indicated by the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 6th September, 2010 ( Justice Kuldip Singh), (tr) Judge.