JUDGMENT : RANJAN SHARMA, J. 1. Notice. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal, at this stage, in view of the orders intended to be passed herein. 3. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the following prayers: “That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to transfer the petitioner within a time bound period from the present place of posting i.e. Indira Gandhi Medical College & Hospital, Shimla, H.P. to in Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri Government Medical College Ner-chowk, District Mandi, H.P. where the posts of Staff Nurse are going to fall vacant very shortly due to promotion and retirement, keeping in view her adverse family circumstances.” 4. The petitioner was appointed as a Staff Nurse, on contract basis, through batch-wise selection on 30.08.2019, and was posted in Indira Gandhi Medical College & Hospital, Shimla, during her posting at Indira Gandhi Medical College & Hospital, Shimla, she was regularized in the aforesaid Institution by the State Authorities. 5. Now, the only grievance of the petitioner is that she has completed more than four years of stay at Indira Gandhi Medical College & Hospital, Shimla, and keeping in view the adverse family circumstances, the petitioner had made a representation on 02.10.2023, Annexure P-1, to respondent No. 2-Director, Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, requesting to consider the grievances and to redress the same. 6. Per contra, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that being a State Cadre Employee, the petitioner has neither any fundamental nor any legal right to seek posting at a specific station or places of choice. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is trite law that in case an employee has some hardships, then, such employee has to seek redressal from the Administrative Authorities and not by judicial intervention. 8. In view of the settled law, in case of Shilpi Bose and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, 1991 Supp. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is trite law that in case an employee has some hardships, then, such employee has to seek redressal from the Administrative Authorities and not by judicial intervention. 8. In view of the settled law, in case of Shilpi Bose and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 659 and the mandate of law passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of U.P. and Others vs. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402 , this Court is conscious of the limits of judicial review, but the present is an exceptional thereto, as the petitioner, in view of the mandate of law, is only seeking redressal of hardships, which are to be considered and examined by Administrative Authorities. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances, since the representation dated 02.10.2023, Annexure P-1, is stated to be still pending, therefore, this Court directs respondent No. 2-Director, Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, to consider/examine the representation and to pass appropriate orders, within two weeks from today, after giving personal hearing to the petitioner. 10. In the aforesaid terms, the writ petition as well as the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.