JUDGEMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. - 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. 2. THE sole ground on which the transfer order passed against the petitioner has been challenged is that in place of the petitioner, who is a regular employee, a contract employee (respondent No.3) will be deputed on transfer. That is impermissible as expounded in the case of Anuradha Garg, which has been followed by another Division Bench of this Court in Satya Prakash vs. State of HP and others, decided on 9th January, 2013 in CWP No. 8169 of 2012. This submission is canvassed without taking into account two crucial aspects. Firstly, that the decision in Anuradha Garg's case was with reference to the stipulation provided in Memorandum dated 13th August, 2009. The said Memorandum has now been superseded by transfer policy formulated by the State Government on 10th July, 2013. As per the new transfer policy, the contract employees, who have completed three years of service are treated at par with the regular employees and could be transferred on administrative grounds. The fact noted in the impugned transfer order that transfer of teachers on contract basis/para teacher may not be implemented on vice -versa and vice regular teachers in that sense is not inconsonance with Clause 7 of the new transfer policy, which reads thus: "7. Postings/transfer of Contract Employees: The employees appointed on contract basis shall be eligible for transfer after completion of three years of service at par with the regular employees on administrative grounds, wherever required. The transfer/posting of such contractual employees will be made on need based basis." In any case, the petitioner, in the first place, has to substantiate that he is not due for transfer or for that matter, his transfer would be in breach of the transfer policy in vogue in some manner. In absence thereof, the sole ground on which the petitioner has approached before this Court cannot be taken forward and the petitioner cannot succeed. It is for the administration to decide the administrative exigency and posting of particular employee at a given location. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is serving in and around Shimla since 1996, for which reason was due for transfer long back. 3. AS no other contention is urged before us, this petition should fail. The same is dismissed. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is serving in and around Shimla since 1996, for which reason was due for transfer long back. 3. AS no other contention is urged before us, this petition should fail. The same is dismissed. 4. AT this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that he has reason to believe that respondent No.3, who is likely to be posted against the post held by the petitioner prior to the issuance of the impugned transfer order, is likely to be sent to some other location. In that case, the present post would become available. Therefore, the petitioner be allowed to make representation to the appropriate Authority. It is open to the petitioner to make representation, but we are not expressing any opinion either way on the merits thereof; nor we are suggesting that the petitioner has right to be restored back to the original post, which was held by him before the transfer order was issued. That is for the appropriate Authority to consider and take decision, as may be advised. We are not expressing any opinion in that behalf. With the dismissal of the writ petition, needless to observe, that interim order stands vacated forthwith.