Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 183 (HP)

Savita Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2011-01-05

V.K.SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT V.K.Sharma, J. The petition has been filed on the following prayer vide para 7(a): “(a) That the order of transfer dated 11/11/2010 (Annexure P-1) may kindly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. In reply, private respondent No.5 has taken the following stand vide paras 2 and 3: “2. That the petitioner has misled this Hon’ble Court by suppressing the material fact as there is no order dated 11.11.2010 passed by the department. In fact, the order dated 1.11.2010 has been issued transferring the petitioner from GSSS (B) Chamba to GHS Jamuhar. But she did not join the place of her transfer and after the joining of the replying respondent on 11.11.2010 she filed present writ petition before this Hon’ble Court 16.11.2010. Therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 3. That the petitioner stated in the writ petition that her husband is working in the same Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? department and she has filed representation before respondents No.2 and 3 for her adjustment near Shimla and Solan. In fact her husband is a Shopkeeper at Chamba and mislead this Hon’ble Court by placing the wrong averments in her writ petition.” 3. Respondent No.1 to 4 are yet to file replies. However, in view of the agreement between the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned office order dated 11.11.2010, Annexure P-1, whereby she has been transferred from Government Senior Secondary School (Boys), Chamba to Government High School, Jamuhar, Chamba and in her place private respondent No.5 who was earlier posted at Government High School, Gagla (Chamba) has been brought. Admittedly, whereas the petitioner is a regular teacher, private respondent No.5 is a para-teacher. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is covered under judgment dated 28.6.2010 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3437 of 2010, Anuradha Garg versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others. 6. Admittedly, whereas the petitioner is a regular teacher, private respondent No.5 is a para-teacher. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is covered under judgment dated 28.6.2010 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3437 of 2010, Anuradha Garg versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others. 6. In view of above, if on facts, the case of the petitioner is covered under the judgment referred to herein above and she is also a similarly situate person as the petitioner in the said case, she shall be treated similarly without any discrimination and benefit of the said judgment shall also be extended to him subject to her making a representation along with copy of this judgment to respondent No.2 within a fortnight from today and the said respondent shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter within next fortnight in accordance with law and jjustice. In order enable respondent No.2 to consider the matter in right perspective and take an appropriate decision, the petitioner shall produce copy of the judgment referred to hereinabove. Needless to say that an opportunity of personal hearing shall also be afforded to the petitioner and private respondent No.5, if so desired. Till then interim order dated 18.11.2010 shall continue. 7. The petition stands disposed of so also pending CMP(S), if any.