Kuldeep Nautiyal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 3890 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Kuldeep Nautiyal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 28 April, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                   Writ Petition No. 645 of 2025 (S/S)

Kuldeep Nautiyal                                            ..........Petitioner

                                       Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Others                                .....Respondent
Present :
              Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner.
              Mr. Narein Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State.
              Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.



                                  JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to the transfer

order dated 16.04.2025, by which the petitioner has been

transferred from Roorkee to Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner is Mandi Supervisor, which is feeder cadre to the position

of Secretary in the Mandi Samiti. He has been given charge of

Mandi Secretary at Roorkee. His three years' tenure has yet not

been completed, but he has been transferred at Bhagwanpur,

which is Categorized as 'D' Category. It is submitted that at the

place of the petitioner, one Pankaj Raj Shah has been transferred

from Laksar, who is not even eligible to be appointed as Secretary,

because he is merely a Mandi Inspector. It is argued that the

transfer could have been affected by the Director or Additional

Director, whereas, the impugned transfer order has been passed by

the General Manager, Administration.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 would

submit that the transfer is in accordance with public policy; both

the petitioner and the respondent no.4 are trained for Mandi

Secretary; the petitioner was given extra charge of Secretary at

Roorkee since 06.12.2022, and with effect from 07.07.2017, he has

been given charge of Mandi Bhagwanpur as well. He would also

submit that the transfer order has been approved by the Director,

which has been issued by the General Manager, Administrator.

5. Transfer orders are generally not interfered with unless

there is some mala fide imputed and substantiated in material

particulars.

6. During the course of argument, on behalf of the respondent

nos. 2 and 3, it is also submitted that the petitioner has almost

completed three years in Roorkee. He is short of two months only.

7. Both the petitioner and the respondent no.4 have been

given charge of Secretary, Mandi Samiti, at their respective places.

Both are not Secretary as such. The transfer has been made in

public interest. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to

interference. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed

at the stage of admission itself.

8. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 28.04.2025 Ravi Bisht