Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/1988/2023 on 20 October, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSS No.1988 of 2023
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2. Mr. R.C, Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the
State.
3. This is the second round of litigation by the
petitioner. The petitioner has challenged her transfer order
by filing an earlier Writ Petition (S/S) No.1505 of 2023,
whereby the respondent-Authority was directed to decide
representation of the petitioner by passing a detailed
speaking order, in accordance with law, within a stipulated
period vide judgment and order dated 18.08.2023.
4. Now, by respondent no.3-Chief Education Officer,
Tehri-Garhwal representation of the petitioner has been
rejected and basis for rejection is that the petitioner has given
the name of such schools/colleges in her representation,
which are situated in accessible areas (sugam) and none of
such schools are situated in remote areas (durgam).
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide
Government Order dated 15.06.2023, which has been passed
in purported exercise of Section 27 of The Uttarakhand
Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017 (for short
"Act"), special category has been created for exemption for
transfer under the said Act, wherein the single parent
(widow/widower), with dependants/children shall be
transferred, on the options given by them, as far as possible.
6. Attention of this Court is drawn by learned counsel
for the petitioner to Clause-2 of the aforesaid Government
Order dated 15.06.2023 (Annexure no.7 to the writ petition),
wherein such arrangement has been made.
7. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for
the petitioner that it nowhere states that the options to be
exercised by such parent would be of school/college situated
in (durgam) remote area on accessible area (sugam).
8. Per-Contra, learned counsel for the State submitted
that since the petitioner has been transferred under the said
Act and therefore, the options should have been given by her
of schools/colleges situated in (durgam) remote areas, if we
read it along with Section 9 of the Act.
9. Having considered the submission made by learned
counsel for the parties, this Court finds that such a
construction cannot be given, which has been offered by
leaned State counsel, simply for the reason that had it been in
the mind of the Authorities to ask for the option from such
parents (single parent), there would have been no such
arrangement made in Government Order dated 15.06.2023,
inasmuch as, Section 9 of the Act itself says about giving the
options of schools/colleges situated in (durgam) remote area.
10. I prima-facie found force in the argument submitted
by learned counsel for the petitioner.
11. Learned counsel for the State prays for and is
granted six weeks' time for filing counter affidavit.
12. Further two weeks' time is granted to the learned
counsel for the petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit.
13. List this case on 03.01.2024.
14. In the meantime, the petitioner shall not be relieved
from the present place of posting.
15. Interim Relief Application (IA No.1 of 2023) stands
disposed-off accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
20.10.2023
SK
