IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.3163 of 2010. Date of Decision: 7.12.2010. Reeta Sharma …Petitioner Versus. State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Petitioner(s): Mr.Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl.A.G. for respondents No.1 to 3. Ms.Suvreta Sood, counsel for respondent No.4. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order Annexure P-5 whereby she has been transferred from GPS Purani Mandi (Sadar) to GPS Bata (Kataula). 2. The main ground raised in the petition is that the petitioner has served for only about two years at GPS Purani Mandi and has not completed her normal tenure. It is further urged that her transfer has been made only with a view to adjust respondent No.4. Lastly, it is urged that earlier also as a result of rationalization policy it was the respondent No.4 who was transferred and therefore she should have joined at GPS Bata (Kataula). 2 3. There is no doubt that firstly respondent No.4 was transferred to GPS Bata (Kataula) and she made a representation to the higher authorities that she be retained at Bal Mandi or kept at Mandi. 4. From the material on record, it is more than obvious that the petitioner has spent last 10 ½ years within a radius of 12 k.ms from Mandi. For 8 years she remained posted at GPS Mehar and for the last 2 ½ years she was posted at GPS Purani Mandi. Both the petitioner and respondent No.4, who are teachers, have shown no interest for the well being of the students at their respective schools but their personal interests take primacy over the interest of the students. Even respondent No.4 had proceeded on leave and not joined at Bata. This shows the kind of interest they have in serving the people. 5. Be that as it may, the petitioner has spent more than 10 years in and around Mandi and cannot now claim that she has any right to stay at one station infinitely. The students of both the schools have a right to get proper education. 6. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. No costs. December 7, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) PV Judge.