Uttarakhand High Court
Kabindra Mohan Bhatt And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 8 July, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 1129 of 2025 (S/S)
Kabindra Mohan Bhatt and others ..........Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ........ Respondents
Present : Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Mr. Rafat Munir Ali and Ms. Irum Zeba,
Advocates for the petitioners.
Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State/respondent nos.1 to 4.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
By means of the instant petition, the petitioners seek
the following reliefs:-
"i. A Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for
record and quash the Transfer Orders/Lists dated 19.06.2025,
20.06.2025 and 21.06.2025 (Annexure No.1) to the extent of
petitioner no.1 to 37 and revert/retransfer them to their place of
posting prior to impugned Transfer Orders dated 19.06.2025,
20.06.2025 and 21.06.2025 i.e. situated in Hill-Districts of
Pithoragarh, Bageshwar and Champawat/respective Home
Districts.
ii. A Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for
record and quash the Transfer Orders/Lists dated 07.08.2024
(Annexure No. 2) to the extent of petitioner no.38 to 64 and
revert/retransfer them to their place of posting prior to impugned
Transfer Orders dated 07.08.2024 i.e. situated in Hill-Districts of
Pithoragarh, Bageshwar and Champawat/respective Home
Districts.
iii. Any other suitable Writ/Order or Directoin which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the Case.
iv. Further prays that the Hon'ble Court may direct the respondents
to pay the cost of the litigation.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are working as Head Constables/Constables in
Uttarakhand Police. By virtue of communications dated
21.06.2017, which is Annexure No.3 to the writ petition and dated
20.12.2020, which is Annexure No.4 to the writ petition, of the
respondent no.2/the Director General of Police ("the DGP"), a policy
decision was taken that Head Constables/Constables may be
posted/transferred in their home Districts; the only exception was
that they may not be posted/transferred in their home Tehsil. It is
argued that accordingly, the petitioners were posted in the hill
Districts of the State of Uttarakhand; they may not be disturbed
from their place of postings. Particularly, learned counsel has
referred to communication dated 20.12.2020 of the DGP and paras
13 and 15 of it has been referred to. According to para 13, the Head
Constables/Constables may be appointed or transferred to their
home Districts as per their options and as per para 13 of
communication dated 20.12.2020; if any such employee is desirous
to stay in his posting in the hill District in the State of
Uttarakhand, he may do so. Therefore, it is argued that their
transfer orders are against their own policy.
4. The Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for
the petitioners, as to how it is against the policy? Which policy
prevents transfer of Head Constables/Constables in Uttarakhand
Police from their own Districts to some other Districts? Learned
counsel for the petitioners replies that there is no absolute
prohibition on transfers.
5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the
communication dated 21.06.2017 and 20.12.2020, merely makes a
decision that Head Constables/Constables of Uttarakhand Police
may be posted in their home Districts. But, he would submit that
there is no bar of transferring them from their home Districts at
some other places.
6. In the petition reference has also been made to the
Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017 ("the
Act"). But, admittedly, the provisions of the Act are not applicable
on the petitioners, who are Head Constables/Constables in the
Uttarakhand Police. It is true that the communication dated
21.06.2017 and 20.12.2020 make provisions that the Head
Constables/Constables may be posted in their home Districts, but
it nowhere makes any prohibition on their transfers from their
home District to any other place. In so far as the petitioner nos.38
to 64 are concerned, they were transferred on 07.08.2024. Now
they challenge it. It is much delayed also.
7. In view of what is discussed hereinabove, there is no
merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be
dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
8. The petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
08.07.2025
Sanjay
SANJAY Digitally signed by SANJAY KANOJIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd504686df4d1afc6
KANOJIA
0f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC450A84B51
5A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA
Date: 2025.07.08 18:35:03 +05'30'
