High CourtsDivision Bench

Anuradha Rani vs State Of H.P & Others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 8 January 2021 · Citation: (2021) 01 SHI CK 0140

HON’BLE JUDGES
L. Narayana Swamy, CJ · Ravi Malimath, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 358 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 386 words

L. Narayana Swamy, CJ

1.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, who is working as a Lecturer (Mathematics), has challenged the order dated 17.12.2020, (Annexure P-

4), hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned order’, whereby she has been transferred from Government Senior Secondary School Amlehar,

District Hamirpur to join at Government Senior Secondary School, Ramshehar, District Solan.

2.

The case of the petitioner is that private respondent No. 3, who is working as Lacturer (Mathematics) at Government Senior Secondary School

Ramsher, District Solan and originally belongs to Distt. Hamirpur near to the place of posting of the petitioner, approached the petitioner with the

proposal that she may give her consent to be posted against a post of Lecturer (Mathematics) at Government Senior Secondary School Pragpur in

District Kangra, H.P., which is lying vacant, so that respondent No. 3 can be posted against the resultant vacancy at Government Senior Secondary

School Amlehar, District Hamirpur. The petitioner gave her consent on a plain paper. Further case of the petitioner is that vide impugned transfer

order, the petitioner was transferred from Government Senior Secondary School Amlehar, District Hamirpur to join at Government Senior Secondary

School, Ramshehar, District Solan, whereas she had not consented for the same.

3.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had not consented for her transfer at the transferred station. He further submits that

the impugned transfer order has been shown mutual consent basis without TTA and joining time.

4.

Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the transfer of the petitioner has been made in public interest.

5.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record carefully.

6.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to dispose of this writ petition directing the petitioner to make a representation to the

respondents-State/competent Authority, highlighting her grievances, within two weeks from today and thereafter, the respondents are directed to

examine the same and pass appropriate orders. Ordered accordingly. Till then, the petitioner is at liberty to avail leave of the kind due.

7.

It is made clear that since the transfer of the petitioner has been made in public interest, she is entitled to consequential transfer allowance.

8.

The petition is accordingly disposed of along with pending applications, if any.