Himachal Pradesh High Court
Vishal Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 7 July, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10729 of 2025 Date of Decision:07.07.2025 .
_______________________________________________________ Vishal Sharma .......Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Motta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Advocate, for the respondents/State.
____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 26.05.2025 (Annexure P-5), whereby representation, having been filed by the petitioner, in terms of order dated 20.03.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 3925 of 2025, titled Vishal Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, came to be rejected on the ground that at present posts of TGT (NM) are not vacant in the schools mentioned by the petitioner in the representation.
2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Motta, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that though in the representation, petitioner had given names of at least 10 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2025 21:24:40 :::CIS 2stations, wherein incumbents are working for more than requisite period, but interestingly Director of School Education, Himachal .
Pradesh, while considering the representation failed to take note of the same and mechanically proceeded to record in impugned order that at present post of TGT(NM) are not lying vacant in the schools mentioned in the representation.
3. Having perused impugned order dated 26.05.2025 (Annexure P-5), vis-à-vis representation dated 23.02.2025 (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioner, coupled with the directions contained in order dated 20.03.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 3925 of 2025, this Court finds reason to interfere in the afore order for the reason that once petitioner had indicated 10 schools, wherein incumbents were having longer stay, coupled with the fact that transfer policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh provides for minimum tenure of three years at one place of posting, Director School Education, Himachal Pradesh was expected to adopt pragmatic approach and certainly in no manner, he could have decided the representation in routine manner that too without verifying correctness of the averments made in the representation filed by the petitioner.
4. True, it is that Court, while considering the case of the petitioner, cannot ignore the fact that on account of transfer, if any, of ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2025 21:24:40 :::CIS 3 the petitioner from present place of posting, studies of 21 students would suffer, but since it is not in dispute that petitioner is teaching at .
present place of posting i.e. Government High School, Amboi u/c GMSSS Jangla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, no prejudice, if any, would have caused to either of the parties in case efforts would have been made by authority concerned to verify the factual position qua the incumbency of the incumbents in the schools mentioned by the petitioner before passing order, if any, on the representation.
5. No doubt, this Court, while passing order dated 20.03.2025 in CWP No. 3925 of 2025, had directed the authority concerned to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner expeditiously, but that does not mean that representation could have been decided in hurried manner without verifying the facts, rather in that situation, authority concerned ought to have come before the Court seeking extension of time to do the needful, which certainly in the given facts and circumstances, would have been accepted by this Court.
6. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 26.06.2025 (Annexure P-5) is quashed and set-aside with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner afresh, taking note of the averments contained in the same within a period of four ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2025 21:24:40 :::CIS 4 weeks and in case, some of the teachers are found to be working in the schools, mentioned in the representation, for more than requisite .
period, Director may consider the prayer of the petitioner favourably by transferring incumbent with longer stay to some other station.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 07,2025 (shankar) ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2025 21:24:40 :::CIS