Uttarakhand High Court
Seema Malhotra vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 26 February, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No.138 of 2024
Seema Malhotra ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ........Respondents
Presence:-
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Bhupendra Koranga, learned Brief Holder for the State.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
The matter is listed as defective one, but, it is
submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
defect is there in the Urgency Application which was filed
with the writ petition to take up the matter during
vacation. The said Urgency Application is today not
pressed, therefore, the defect as pointed by the Registry is
overruled, as it has no meaning at present.
2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner
has challenged the order dated 11.07.2022 passed by the
Regional Additional Director, Secondary Education,
Garhwal Mandal, Pauri Garhwal (Annexure No.4) as well
as the order dated 25.01.2024 passed by respondent
no.2, whereby, the representation of the petitioner was
rejected.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the
petitioner has been transferred by the impugned transfer
order from the Government Girls Intermediate College,
Narendra Nagar, Tehri Garhwal to Government Higher
Secondary Girls School, Kotsada, Kot, Pauri Garhwal.
4. The petitioner has challenged this order by filing a
writ petition No.1417 of 2022 (S/S), wherein, the writ
petition was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to
move a representation against the transfer order.
5. According to the petitioner, she was suffering
from serious illness as defined under Section 3(d) of the
Annual Transfer Act, 2017. The said representation of the
petitioner was rejected by the respondent-Authority vide
order dated 21.09.2022, which again was put under
challenge by filing writ petition No.1920 of 2022 (S/S) on
the ground that the aspect of the illness has not been
considered by the respondent Authority while rejecting
the representation of the petitioner.
6. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 21.11.2022 has entertained the writ petition
observing that the petitioner may join at the transferred
place, however, her joining shall be subject to the final
outcome of the writ petition. The said writ petition
No.1920 of 2022 (S/S) was also disposed of by a detailed
order, wherein, it has been observed that the certificate of
illness of the petitioner was submitted, according to
which, the petitioner was suffering from serious ailment
as defined under "Serious Patient" under Section 3(d) of
the Annual Transfer Act, 2017. The genuineness of which
was also accepted by the respondent-State on instruction
and the writ petition was finally disposed of with a
direction to the respondent-Additional Director
Education, Pauri Garhwal to reconsider the case of the
petitioner, who in her turn would file a fresh
representation, within a stipulated period.
7. The petitioner is today before this Court again
with the same grievance that the representation has been
decided by the concerned Authority vide impugned order
dated 25.01.2024 only for the sake of the disposal of the
representation of the petitioner; the reason of ailment of
the petitioner has not been considered at all and the fact
that the identical treatment given to the case of Suneeta
Rana has not been given to the petitioner and no heed
was given to the petitioner's claims while deciding the
representation of the petitioner.
8. I have perused the impugned order dated
25.01.2024. From the perusal of the order, by which the
representation was rejected, it only reflects that the
representation was rejected simply for the reason that the
petitioner had joined at the transferred place ignoring the
fact that the Court vide order dated 21.11.2022 had given
interim relief that the joining of the petitioner would be
subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.
9. In this view of the matter, order dated
25.01.2024 cannot sustain and deserves to be quashed.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with a direction
to respondent no.2-Regional Additional Director,
Secondary Education, Garhwal Region, Pauri Garhwal to
reconsider the representation of the petitioner in the light
of the judgment rendered by this Court vide order dated
08.01.2024 with speaking order within a period of 10
days from the date of production of certified copy of this
order.
10. Pending application(s) if any stands disposed
of accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
26.02.2024
PN
