IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP. No.2963 of 2010.. Date of Decision:6.9.2010.. _______________________________________________ Rashmi Thakur. ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?No. For the petitioner :Mr.N.K.Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents 1 to 4.:Mr.P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General. For Respondent No.5 Mr. Navlesh Verma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Additional Advocate General. The petitioner challenges her transfer from Govt. Senior Secondary School (boys), Hamirpur to Govt. Senior Secondary School, Bharwain (Una). One of the grounds urged for setting aside the order is that she has a young son, who suffering from multiple serious medical problems including mental retardation. For this purpose, the petitioner has appended medical record of her son who is being treated in Post Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? yes . 2 Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that this court has no jurisdiction to interfere in transfer matters as there are administrative requirements and transfers are made in the exigencies of service decisions taken in public interest. This is a general proposition of law urged in wide terms before this Court. Usually, the Court will not interfere in transfer petitions/cases. However, considering this case as one of a extreme hardship that is to say that the petitioner is placed under distressing circumstances where she has to look after her son, suffering from multiple medical infirmities as also provide medical aid which is available at Zonal Hospital, Hamirpur having the requisite facilities, this Court can always pass such orders as it may deem fit in the interests of justice and in the facts and circumstances of the case. In these circumstances, it is but expected that the case of the petitioner would be considered by the respondents in the light of the facts as pleaded and the material as placed on the record. This would not be in violation of the general principles that transfer orders will not normally be interfered with. This writ petition is directed to be treated as a representation by respondent No.1, who shall dispose it of as expeditiously as possible and shall also allow the petitioner to represent her case personally as also place on 3 record before him such other and further documents/material in support of her claim. The writ petition is disposed of. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach this Court again in case the representation is decided against her. Interim order issued by this Court shall remain in force till the decision finally taken by the respondent or by this Court as the case may be. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. September 6, 2010(R)