IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T)No. 1469 of 2008. Date of decision: 15.7.2009 Paplish Rani …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others .... Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Mr.P.P.Chahan, Advocate. For the respondents: Sh.R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with Sh.R.M.Bhisht, Dy. Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) By means of this writ petition the petitioner has laid challenge to the order dated 20th June, 2008 whereby she has been transferred from the office of District Ayurvedic Office, Dharamshala to the office of District Ayurvedic Office, Chamba. Stay order was granted in favour of the petitioner on 26.6.2008. The petitioner continued at Dharamshala by virtue of the stay order. The grievance of the petitioner is that the transfer in question has not been made in the public interest but has only been made to accommodate the respondent No.4. It has been further alleged that earlier the petitioner was transferred from Paprola to Dharamshala and her children are studying in a 2 good school at Dharamshala and, therefore, she may be permitted to continue at the present place of posting. Reply has been filed by the State. It has been stated in the reply that the husband of the petitioner is working at District Ayurvedic Office, Chamba and the petitioner has been adjusted at Chamba being a couple case. It has also been mentioned that the petitioner remained posted at District Ayurvedic Office, Kangra since June, 2006 and has completed her normal tenure there. Before us it has been urged that since the petitioner’s children are studying in a good school at Dharamshala, she may be permitted to continue there in the interest of the children. All employees of the State must be treated equally. It is not as if the petitioner has been posted to some far flung area where no schools are available. Chamba is also a District Headquarter with reasonable facilities of education. The husband of the petitioner is also posted at Chamba. We, therefore, find no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. Stay order is vacated. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge July 15, 2009 (Surinder Singh) (m) Judge