IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1658 of 2010. Decided on 4.01.2011 Babita Kumari ..…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Respondents. _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A. G. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate for respondents No.3. V.K.Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petitioner is a JBT Teacher. Vide office order dated 20.4.2010, Annexure P-1, she has been transferred from Government Primary School, Samanay-Di-Kothi (Chamba-I) to Government Primary School, Belaj (Mehla-I) to adjust private respondent No.4. The record reveals that private respondent No.4 who was earlier posted at Saru, pursuant to rationalization scheme was proposed to be shifted to Bhunad (Sundla) as is apparent from letter dated 9.2.2010, Annexure P-2. It also appears that thereafter private respondent No.4 was transferred to GPS, Belaj (Mehla-I) from where she is now proposed to be transferred to GPS, Samanay-Di-Kothi (Chamba-I) vice the petitioner. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had already served in hard area i.e. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Government Primary School, Lothal from November, 1996 to November, 1998. Apart from that now she has been disturbed despite short stay of only 1 ½ years. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel for private respondent No.4 submits that the said respondent is suffering from Rheumatic Arthiritis with deformities and it was keeping in view her state of health that she has been adjusted at Samanay-Di-Kothi (Chamba-I) against the petitioner. 4. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction that subject to the petitioner making a representation along with copy of this judgment to respondent No.2 within a fortnight from today, the said respondent shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter within next fortnight in accordance with law and justice by exploring the possibility to adjust the petitioner suitably by taking into consideration the contentions raised by her that she had already served in hard area and has been shifted despite short stay only to adjust private respondent No.4, who has been rendered surplus due to rationalization scheme and the state of health of the petitioner, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and private respondent No.4, if so desired. 5. In view of disposal of the main petition, pending CMP(s), if any shall also stand disposed of as infructuous Copy dasti. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 4th January, 2011. (jai)