Whether approved for reporting?

Yes ___________________________________o_________________ _

For the petitioner: Mr. Pankaj Thakur, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate Genetral.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge r(Oral)

Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents.

By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“I. That Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned Office Order dated 03.02.2026 contained in Annexure P-6.

II. That, a writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued by directing the respondent to transfer the petitioner against one of the vacant posts mentioned in para 11 of the petition in view of the 5% inter district transfer policy/guidelines in the interest of justice.”

The grievance of the petitioner is that his application, seeking transfer under the 5% Inter-District quota, stands rejected by the Authorities in terms of Annexure P-6.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, this Court does not find any infirmity¹Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? in the same.

On a query put to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Court was informed that the petitioner was appointed in District Mandi as a JBT Teacher, which is a District Cadre Post, in the year 2020, initially on contract basis and, thereafter, his services were regularized in the year 2022. A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that the reasons aso to why the representation of the petitioner has been rejected, inter alia, are that in District Mandi, out of 2,867 posts of JBT Teachers, 631 posts are lying vacant.

This Couurt is of the considered view that when the petitioner joined the service as a JBT Teacher, he was aware of the fact that this is a District Cadre Post. The issues that the mother of the petitioner is unwell and his wife is also in job, are no grounds to set aside a prudent order passed by the Authorities, as obviously any transfer of a JBT Teacher from District Mandi to some other District under the 5% quota shall deplete the already depleted Hstrength of JBT Teachers in the District which will adversely affect the education of the students in the said District.

In fact, this Court would like to make an observation that numerous JBT Teachers are approaching this Court seeking transfer under the 5% Inter-District quota after putting in hardly 3 to 5 years of service in the Districts, to which they stand appointed, on various pleas, which in the considered view of this Court is only for the reason that the 5% Policy of Inter-District transfer in vogue for such like Teachers, creates a hope in all these incumbents that after gaining employment in a particular District they are not bound to serve that particular District forever and can shift to a District of their choice. Whether or not, any such quota should be there, is of course a Policy Decision and the Court would not like to comment upon it, but then, there should be rigorous conditions attached to the same, to ensure that this quota is not abused and exploited by such Teachers or by the Authorities also a nd only those who really are in extreme hardships are given othe benefit thereof.

Therefore, though this petition is dismissed, however, the case is ordered to be listed on 18.05.2026, with a direction that Secretary (Educationu), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh shall file an affidavit, mentioning therein, as to what measures can be introduced in the existing Inter-District Transfer Policy, to ensure that there is no abuse of the said Policy by the incumbents. The Court impresses upon the Authority to seriously consider that no incumbent should be allowed to seek Inter-District transfer for a minimum period of 10 to 15 years and thereafter al