Uttarakhand High Court
WPPIL/175/2014 on 20 March, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
WPPIL No.175 of 2014
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Sakshi Singh, learned counsel holding
brief of Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2. Mr. Puran Singh Bisht, learned Additional
C.S.C. for the State.
3. Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for
respondent no.5.
4. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, learned counsel for
intervener.
5. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has
sought the following reliefs:-
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding and restraining the
respondents forthwith from invoking the method of
"Attachment", in favor of chosen few, whereby
although as per policy a person cannot be posted at
a Sugam place and has to invariably give services in
the difficult and backward areas of the State,
situated in Hilly Terrains, however though being
shown to be posted there on papers but is actually
attached with an office situated at place like
Dehradun, Haridwar, Udham Singh Nagar or
Haldwani, which are plain developed areas, where he
marks his presence at his place of attachment and
draws salary against the post against which he is
shown to be posted on papers only, say at
Pithoragarh, Uttarkashi, Chamoli, which are situated
at altitude and are not so developed and in fact are
the places, which actually need development,
support and services and thereby depriving the
inhabitants of hilly and difficult region public services
and a chance to develop and progress, which
otherwise was the very basis, object, reason and
foundation for creation of a separate State of
Uttarakhand from the erstwhile undivided State of
Uttar Pradesh.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondent Government
not to arbitrarily, unequally, and discriminatorily
apply the Transfer Policy 27-06-2006, promulgated
by it, in a pick and choose manner, the object of
which otherwise was to bring in transparency,
precision, and justifiability and do away with
hardships, nepotism, and arbitrariness in its actions.
III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding and restraining the different
departments of the Government from unjustifiably,
illegally and arbitrarily opening "CAMP OFFICES", the
method, which is adopted to favor chosen few, by
the powers that be, in order to circumvent and
breach the provisions of the policy dated 27-6-2006,
whereby though the Head office and Principal seat is
at place "X", which is in Hilly area however the
officials starts discharging his duties from place "Y",
which is in plain convenient area, by opening a Camp
Office although genuinely and bonafidely concept of
camp office is to be applied in a case where principal
seat is in a developed area, away from the Hilly
areas and people living in Hills find it difficult and
almost impossible to reach the high Offices of the
Government for redressal of their grievances, Camp
Office is opened in the difficult, undeveloped, Hilly
areas."
6. Learned State Counsel points out that
subsequent to filing of this writ petition, State
Legislature has enacted Uttarakhand Annual
Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017 and the issue
raised in this writ petition is covered by the
provisions of the said Act. He further relies upon
the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of
Maharashtra & others; reported in 2013 (4)
SCC 465, in which, it is held that no public interest
litigation can be filed in respect of service matters.
Thus, according to learned State Counsel, writ
petition is not maintainable.
7. This Court finds substance in the said
contention. The issue raised in the writ petition is
service matter, which is not only covered by the
State Legislature, as referred above, but reliefs as
claimed in this writ petition cannot be granted in
public interest litigation. Accordingly, writ petition is
dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
20.03.2024
AK
