A division judge bench of the Justice Vipin Sanghi and Ramesh Chandra Khulbe Uttarakhand HC quashed the impugned order dated 07.01.22 by the state since there is no justification offered for sudden cancellation of the transfer of the petitioner which took effect on 01.01.2022- merely after seven days on 07.01.2022.
Facts:
The petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on 27.08.2021. and was then posted at Rudrapur. On 12.10.2021, the petitioner was transferred from Minor Irrigation Division, Rudrapur to Minor Irrigation Division, Nainital, where he was given posting in Sub Division, Bhimtal. On 31.12.2021, the State issued a general transfer order involving five officers. Respondent No. 2, who was then serving in Minor Irrigation Sub Division, Haldwani Division, was transferred to Minor Irrigation Sub Division Nainital, District Nainital. The petitioner was transferred to Minor Irrigation Sub Division Haldwani, District Nainital. In pursuance to this transfer order, the petitioner states that within seven days of his joining, the impugned order was issued by respondent No. 1 on 07.01.2022, once again reversing his transfer, as also that of respondent No. 2, in whose place he had joined at Haldwani. He submitted that the Election Code became operative on 08.01.2022 with the announcement of the election programme and the impugned order was issued when the Election Code was in operation. The petitioner further submitted that respondent No. 2 has continuously served at Haldwani since 06.12.2017, upto 31.12.2021, i.e., he had served in excess of four years at Haldwani, when he was transferred vide order dated 31.12.2021.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that in so far as the justification for issuance of the impugned order dated 07.01.2022 is concerned, all that is stated in his counter-affidavit by respondent No. 1 in paragraph 14, while dealing with para 10 of the writ petition, is that “the State Government in its wisdom modified the order of transfer dated 31.12.2021 vide its subsequent order dated 07.01.2022 whereby place of posting of petitioner and respondent No. 2 were interchanged which has not been challenged by the petitioner”. Apart from stating that the impugned order dated 07.01.2022 was issued by the State Government. Apart from stating that the impugned order dated 07.01.2022 was issued by the State Government “in its wisdom”, there is nothing placed on record to show as to on what material the said so called “wisdom” is founded. The submission of respondent no. 2 that his posting is at Bhimtal, which includes some remote areas of Dhari etc. where he is at the fag end of his career, and he has physical ailments which prevent him from serving in remote areas was not accepted by this court by placing reliance on record which shows the chart showing the places of posting of respondent No. 2 from time to time. As per the same, Up Khand Nainital is classified as “Sugam”, i.e., accessible posting.
Therefore, the concluded that since there is no justification offered by respondent No. 1 for sudden cancellation of the transfer of the petitioner which took effect on 01.01.2022- merely after seven days on 07.01.2022, and the only justification offered is the so called “wisdom” of the Government, which is not substantiated on the record, the impugned order dated 07.01.2022 was quashed and set aside.
Decision:
The writ appeal was disposed of by quashing the impugned order dated 07.01.2022 because the only justification offered is the so called “wisdom” of the Government, which is not substantiated by any material record.
Case: Rakesh Kumar Patel vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.
Citation: WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 37 OF 2022
Coram: Justice Vipin Sanghi and Ramesh Chandra Khulbe
Dated: 20.10.2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
