[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/2054/2025 on 1 December, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:10686
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL. No. Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPSS/2015/2025
With
WPSS/2054/2025
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. D.S. Patni, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Advocate for petitioner in
connected WPSS/2054/2025.
Mr. Narayan Dutt, Standing Counsel for the
State.
2. Since common questions of law and fact are
involved in these petitions, therefore they are heard
together and are being decided by a common
judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of
Writ Petition No. 2015 of 2025 (SS) alone are being
discussed and considered.
3. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in
Government Primary School in District Udham Singh
Nagar. She was posted in Government Primary
School, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar ever
since 1999. She was offered promotion as Assistant
Teacher in Government Junior High School vide
order dated 18.08.2025 and she was transferred on
promotion to Government Junior High School,
Balramnagar in Block Gadarpur.
4. Petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition challenging
her transfer on promotion to Balramnagar. The said
writ petition was disposed of vide order dated
29.08.2025. The representation made by petitioner
pursuant to order passed in earlier writ petition has
2025:UHC:10686
been rejected on 11.11.2025. Thus, feeling aggrieved,
petitioner has again approached this Court,
challenging rejection order.
5. Learned State Counsel submits that even
through petitioner had an opportunity to indicate the
schools where she wanted to be transferred on
promotion; however, she did not indicate any school,
therefore, competent authority had no other option
but to transfer her to Balramnagar.
6. State Counsel further submits that petitioner
earlier also was promoted as Assistant Teacher, Govt.
Junior High School on 17.03.2021 and that time also,
she refused to join duties at the transferred place, on
the ground that the school she was offered was not as
per her choice.
7. Learned State Counsel placed reliance upon the
judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Rajendra Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others, as reported in (2009) 15 SCC
178. Para 8 of the said judgment is reproduced below:
"8. A government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a
place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one
place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative
exigencies from one place to the other. Transfer of an employee is not
only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit
as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific
indication to the contrary. No Government can function if the
government servant insists that once appointed or posted in a
particular place or position, he should continue in such place or
position as long as he desires (see State of U.P. v. Gobardhan
Lal [(2004) 11 SCC 402 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 55] , SCC p. 406, para 7).
8. Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for petitioner submits that although there
were vacancies available in 37 different Govt. Junior
2025:UHC:10686
High Schools in the District at the time of promotion;
however, at the time of counselling, only 13
vacancies were displayed and the choice given by
petitioner was against 37 vacancies.
9. He further submits that at the time of
promotion, vacancies were available on the post of
Headmaster, Government Primary School and also on
the post of Assistant Teacher (Science) and (Maths) in
Government Junior High School.
10. Learned State Counsel is right in submitting that
even though petitioner is alleging mala fides against
the concerned authorities, however, those authorities
have not been impleaded as party respondent. He
further submits that according to petitioners, certain
persons were wrongly given posting at place of their
choice; however, those persons are also not
impleaded as respondent. Learned State Counsel
refers to provisions of Transfer Act and submits that
upon promotion, a government servant is liable to be
transferred to a durgam place, as per Section 18 of the
Transfer Act, 2017.
11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case and also in view of law declared by Hon'ble
Apex Court, as referred to above, this Court do not
find any reason to interfere in the matter.
12. Writ petitions fail and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
01.12.2025
Mahinder/
2025:UHC:10686
