IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. COPC No. 242/2010 Decided on:7.10.2010. Krishna Devi. ...Petitioner. Versus Brahm Dass. ... Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1no For the Petitioner : Mr. Virender Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. Justice Rajiv Sharma (oral) This Court had passed the following order in CWP No.3574/2010 on 13.7.2010: “Petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure A-1, order of transfer. In the nature of order, we propose to pass, we do not think that this court should go into the merits of the case. The petitioner may file appropriate representation before the 3rd respondent within 10 days, in which case the matter be duly considered by the 3rd respondent and appropriate orders in accordance with law will be passed thereon within another two weeks. Interim 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No. 2 order, passed by this court, will continue till such time. However, it is made clear that there shall not be two teachers working against the same post. We also make it clear that it will be open to the petitioner to point out the vacant places, where the petitioner can be accommodated, without disturbing anybody else. 2. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. 2. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that respondents have not complied with the judgment dated 13.7.2010. Notice was issued in the present proceedings to respondent on 10.9.2010. In sequel thereto, respondent has filed the reply. Paragraph 4 of the reply reads thus: 4. That in reply to this para it is submitted that as much as the transfer of inter District of the petitioner from District Mandi to District Solan is concerned, in this regard it is submitted that the Government is only empowered to transfer the employee under 1% quota on certain ground, i.e. on medical ground or couple case, therefore, the replying respondent has no role to do with it.” 3. In view of the averments contained in para 4 of the reply, respondent is directed to forward the case of the petitioner for consideration to the Principal Secretary (Education) for the purpose of transferring the petitioner under 1% quota as prayed for in the writ petition within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. Thereafter Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh shall consider the case of the 3 petitioner within another period of one month after the receipt of reference from the respondent. 4. In view of above observations/directions, the petition is disposed of. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma) Judge. 7.10.2010. *awasthi*