Santosh Kumar Pal vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others
2014 Latest Caselaw 4556 Del

  HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

               Special Appeal No.483 of 2014

Santosh Kumar Pal               ........                     Appellant

                            Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others   ..........           Respondents

      Present: Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.
               Mr. P.C. Bisht, Standing Counsel for the State of
             Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1 to 3.

Coram: Hon'ble K.M. Joseph, C.J.
      Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.

                        JUDGMENT

Dated: 17th Sept.,2014

K.M. Joseph, C.J.(oral) Appellant is posted as Senior Eye Assistant at Community Health Center in District Hardwar. He has been working there since 2005. He is now posted by transfer to District Mobile Unit, Champawat in public interest. Respondent No.4 has been transferred at his own request. The contention of arbitrariness did not find favour with the learned Single Judge who took note of the fact that the appellant has been admittedly working at the present place for last 9 years, but the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition taking note of the argument of the writ petitioner that had he been asked his choice, he would have given a choice and directed the Director General, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun to consider the representation made by the petitioner (appellant herein) by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge also imposed further condition in paragraph 8-

" It is further made clear that the representation of the petitioner shall be decided by the Director General provided petitioner joins at his transferred place i.e. at Champawat first."

2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the appellant has given his choice and that is not considered. We are not satisfied that the appellant had made out a case of mala fides as such, nor there is a case of violation of statue. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere, but we feel that the condition imposed by the learned Single Judge for consideration of the representation that he must join at the transferred place, need not be sustained. Accordingly, we vacate the condition imposed in paragraph 8 of the judgment passed in writ petition No.1273 (S/S) of 2014. We also impose a time limit of one week from today for the petitioner to file representation. The representation will be disposed of at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.

4. Subject to the aforesaid modification, the appeal stands disposed of.

                 (V.K. Bist, J.)        (K.M. Joseph, C.J.)
                   17.09.2014              17.09.2014
P. Singh