Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/411/2021 on 20 September, 2021
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
20th September, 2021
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 411 OF 2021
Between:
Kesar Singh Chauhan ...Petitioner
and
State of Uttarakhand and another ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. T.A. Khan, learned
Senior Advocate assisted
by Mr. R.S. Kandpal,
learned counsel.
Counsel for the Respondents/ : Mr. S.S. Chaudhary,
State learned Standing
Counsel for the State.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Alok Kumar Verma)
This writ petition has been filed to issue a writ
of certiorari for quashing the impugned transfer order
dated 13.09.2021, passed by the Secretary, Home
2
Department of the State of Uttarakhand, respondent
no.1, by which, the petitioner has been transferred from
the post of Joint Director (Law) of District Office, Udham
Singh Nagar to the Headquarter of CBCID, Dehradun; a
writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 to
transfer the petitioner on the basis of mutual transfer
from the post of Joint Director (Law), District Udham
Singh Nagar to the post of Joint Director (Law), District
Haridwar.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. Mr. T.A. Khan, the learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was transferred to the District Office of Udham
Singh Nagar in the capacity of Joint Director (Law) on
18.11.2016; he remained at the Head Quarter,
Dehradun between 13.03.2018 to 03.12.2020; he again
joined his services at District Office, Udham Singh Nagar
on 10.12.2020; now, he has been again transferred by
the impugned order dated 13.09.2021 to the office of
CBCID, Dehradun. He submitted that the impugned
transfer order does not reflect any reason for transfer.
3
The petitioner can only be transferred either to the
offices at Nainital, Udham Singh Nagar, Haridwar but
since the petitioner belongs to the District Dehradun,
therefore, he cannot be transferred to the District
Dehradun. Mr. T.A. Khan, the learned Senior Advocate
argued that the impugned transfer order has been
issued on the administrative ground against the
provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 18 of the
Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servant Act,
2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). He further
submitted that the petitioner had moved an application
for the mutual transfer from District Udham Singh Nagar
to District Haridwar with the consent of one Mr. Pushkar
Singh Tolia, Joint Director (Law), Haridwar, therefore,
the respondents should consider the mutual transfers.
4. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, the learned Standing
Counsel for the State supported the impugned transfer
order.
5. The provisions of Section 18 of the Act are
reproduced hereunder :-
"18. In addition to annual/general transfer,
the procedure of posting in
4
appointment/promotion and other transfers
shall be in following conditions, as follows:-
(1) At the time of first appointment, posting
shall compulsorily be made in remote areas.
(2) At the time of promotion, the posting
shall essentially be made in remote areas
subject to the conditions of clause (d) of
Section 7:
Provided that if the post of promotion
does not exist/is not vacant in remote
areas, the posting after promotion may be
made against vacancy available in
accessible areas;
(3) Mutual transfers of two employees shall
be made on willingness for transfer in place
of each other (accessible and remote or
remote and remote or accessible and
accessible for which no travelling allowance
shall be allowed and mutual transfer shall
not be admissible between two employees
working in accessible places;
(4) On enquiry, on the grounds of serious
complaints of misconduct, misbehavior with
senior officers and lack of interest in work
etc. after necessary enquiry and
confirmation, transfer of such employee
may be made on administrative grounds:
Provided that the transfer on
administrative grounds shall not be made
casually or on the basis of complaints of
5
routine nature and in the orders of such
transfer it shall be necessary to mention
Administrative Grounds.
(5) The competent authority may issue
posting/transfer orders besides the transfer
to be made as per clause (1) to (4)
aforesaid in separate and different period
also and it shall not be necessary to bring
such cases before the transfer committee:
Provided that on transfers made on
administrative grounds the competent
authority shall have to take approval from the
one rank higher officer."
6. Sub-section (5) of Section 18 of the Act
provides that the competent authority may issue
posting/transfer order besides the transfer as provided
in sub section (1) to sub section (4) of the Act.
7. A Government servant holding a transferable
post has no vested right to remain posted at one place
or the other. Transfer is an incidence of service and no
employee can claim as a matter of right to retain lien at
the place of his choice. A Government Servant is liable
to be transferred from one place to the other. The
impugned transfer order issued by a competent
authority does not violate any legal rights of the
6
petitioner. The Courts are not an appellate forum to
decide on transfers of officers on the administrative
grounds. It is well settled that, generally, the Courts
should not interfere with a transfer order made for
administrative reasons.
8. In State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs
S.S. Kourav and others, (1995) 3 SCC 270, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the wheels of
administration should be allowed to run smoothly and
the Courts are not expected to interdict the working of
the administrative system by transferring the officer to
proper places.
9. In Petition (S) for Special Leave to Appeal
(C) No.(S) 36717 of 2017 Namrata Verma vs. the
State of Uttar Pradesh and others, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court on 06.09.2021 held that it is not for the
employee to insist to transfer him/her and/or not to
transfer him/her at a particular place. It is for the
employer to transfer an employee considering the
requirement.
10. For the reasons stated above, no interference
is warranted in the impugned transfer order dated
7
13.09.2021. The writ petition sans merits. The writ
petition is hereby dismissed. No costs.
_______________________________
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.
_________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 20th September, 2021
JKJ/Neha
