Anil Kumar Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and, with their consent, the writ petitioner is disposed of at the stage of admission.

The petitioner stood at Serial No.1 in the list of compulsory transfers from sugam to durgam areas since he had, throughout his career ever since 05.08.2004, worked only in sugam areas, that too in the Districts of Dehradun and Haridwar. He exercised ten options, the third of which was for Narendra Nagar in Tehri Garhwal district, which, though classified as a durgam area, was just at a distance of 20 kms from Rishikesh in Dehradun District.

Respondent No.3, whose name was listed at Serial No.4 of the list of compulsory transfers, however opted for mutual transfer with the fourth respondent, who was at Serial No.14 in the list of compulsory transfers from durgam to sugam areas. But for the mutual transfers exercise, undertaken by the official respondent, the fourth respondent would not have been eligible for transfer during the current year, since filling up10% of the vacancies would have required the authorities to stop at Serial No.8 of the said list. Since the third respondent, who was hitherto working at Kashipur, had opted for Narendra Nagar, and the fourth respondent who was working at Narendra Nagar had opted for Kashipur, their mutual requests for transfer was considered; and the petitioner was, instead, transferred to Uttarkashi District.

The petitioner's complaint in this writ petition is that, since compulsory transfers from sugam to durgam areas are required to be effected first under Section 17(1), and mutual transfers falling under Section 18(3) can only be effected later, the respondent had acted illegally in accepting the mutual transfer requests of respondent Nos. 3 and 4; and, instead, the petitioner should have been posted at Narendra Nagar which was his third option.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not, nor could he have, opted for Kashipur which is also a sugam area. It is because the third respondent, who was at Kashipur, had opted for Narendra Nagar, and the fourth respondent who was at Narendra Nagar had opted for Kashipur, were the official respondents required to consider their mutual requests for transfer to the posts held by each other.

The Uttarakhand Annual Transfer For Public Servants Act, 2017 prescribes broad principles for effecting transfers and, in cases where transfers are effected in the exigencies of administration, mathematical precision is not the requirement. Further, as is evident from the chart enclosed along with the writ petition itself, the petitioner has throughout been working only in sugam areas of Dehradun and Haridwar Districts (ever since 05.08.2004 i.e. for the past 15 years). Even now, though he was required to be compulsory transferred to a durgam area, the petitioner again seeks to be posted at a place which, though classified as a durgam area, is, admittedly, located at a distance of just 20 kms from Rishikesh in Dehradun District, which again is a sugam area.

We see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the orders of transfer, more so as the petitioner has merely been transferred to Uttarkashi which again is just 120 kms away from Dehradun. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to be granted the reliefs sought for in the writ petition.

Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, would request that a direction be issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner representation dated 28.06.2019. It is always open to an aggrieved employee to submit a representation to the competent authority, who should examine such a representation in accordance with law. While making it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the petitioner's entitlement to be transferred elsewhere, suffice it to direct the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.06.2019 (a copy of which is enclosed along with the writ petition) with utmost expedition, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. It is also made clear that, pending consideration of his representation, the petitioner shall join at his new place of posting in Uttarakashi and shall not continue in his earlier place of posting awaiting a decision in this regard from the first respondent.

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.