AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 189 wordsS.K. Mishra, J
Heard Mr. Shakti Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned transfer order dated 17.12.2021 passed by respondent No. 1, which is annexed as Annexure-1 on the ground of violation of Sections 8, 9 and 17 of the Uttarakhand Public Servants Annual Transfer Act, 2017.
Having gone through the above provisions, this Court is of the opinion that the provisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are all directory, and not mandatory. Moreover, transfer is an incident of service. It should not be interfered by the High Court in exercise of judicial review, unless mala fide is shown, or if the transfer is in effect reducing the petitioner in rank, and similar considerations.
In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. The present writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
The Interim Relief Application (IA No. 1 of 2021) stands disposed of accordingly.