SPA/92/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 881 UK

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                  AT NAINITAL

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
                             AND
         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA


                SPECIAL APPEAL No. 92 of 2021


                              15th MARCH, 2021


 Between:

 Dinesh Chandra Jakhmola.
                                                                  ...Appellant

 and


 Uttarakhand Schedule Tribe Commission and others.

                                                             ...Respondents


 Counsel for the appellant.       :   Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel.

 Counsel for respondent no. 1.    :   Mr. Lalit Samant, learned counsel.

 Counsel for respondent nos. 2    :   Mr. D.S. Patni, learned senior counsel
 and 3.                               assisted by Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal,
                                      learned counsel.

 Counsel for respondent no. 4     :   Mr. Nalin Saun, learned counsel.


 The Court made the following :


 JUDGMENT : (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)



 1.            The appellant-writ petitioner is aggrieved by

 the order dated 13.01.2021, passed by the learned Single

 Judge, in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 123 of 2020, whereby
 the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition,

and has upheld the Transfer Order dated 26.12.2019.


2.         Mr. Shobhit Saharia, the learned counsel for

the appellant-writ petitioner, submits that the appellant-

writ   petitioner   is   aggrieved   by   the   report   of   the

Uttarakhand Scheduled Tribes Commission (for short "the

Commission"), which had formed the basis of the

impugned transfer order. Since the learned Single Judge

has not set-aside the said report of the Commission, the

appellant-writ petitioner continues to be aggrieved by the

impugned judgment.


3.         On the other hand, Mr. D.S. Patni, the learned

Senior Counsel for the respondent-bank, submits that, in

fact the Commission's report never formed the basis of

the impugned transfer order. The Commission's report is

merely recommendatory in nature; it is not binding on

the bank. The bank had independently taken the decision

to transfer the appellant-writ petitioner for administrative

exigencies.



4.         In rejoinder, Mr. Shobhit Saharia, the learned

counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, submits that the

Commission's report may adversely affect the service

                               2
 career of the appellant-writ petitioner.              Therefore, the

said report still needs to be set-aside by this Court.



5.        On the other hand, Mr. D.S. Patni, the learned

Senior   Counsel      for   the    respondent-Bank,          gives    an

undertaking    that    the    Commission's          report    will    not

adversely affect the service career of the appellant-writ

petitioner,   both    while   he       is   in   service,    and     even

thereafter. According to him, the Commission's report is

a dead letter by now. Therefore, the anxiety expressed

by the learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner is

highly misplaced.



6.        Considering the undertaking given by Mr. D.S.

Patni, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-

Bank, this Court does not find any merit in this Special

Appeal. Therefore, it stands disposed of.



                     _____________________________
                     RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.



                                        ___________________
                                        ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Dt: 15th MARCH, 2021 Rahul