Mukesh Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

B.S. Verma, J.—Heard learned Counsel of the parties and perused the record.

By means of this writ petition the Petitioner has sought following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned transfer order dated 5-7-2010 passed by Respondent No. 2 (contained as annexure No. 3 to this writ petition).

(ii) Issue any other relief, which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the Petitioner.

(iii) Cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the Petitioner.

The Petitioner has challenged the transfer order contending that it is violation of transfer policy implemented by the State Government.

According to the Petitioner, the transfer could be made in order of preference, the person of longer stay is to be transferred first. The Petitioner has mentioned the name in para No. 7 of the writ petition of the persons who are serving in District Dehradun, since more than 20 years.

During the course of argument, learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks liberty to make a representation to the Respondent No. 2 i.e. Director, Training and Employment, Uttarakhand, Haldwani, Nainital, for redressal of his grievance.

The prayer is innocuous.

The Petitioner may make a representation by Monday i.e. 16-08-2010, the same shall be decided by the Respondent No. 2 i.e. Director, Training and Employment, Uttarakhand, Haldwani, Nainital within a week thereafter by a reasoned order keeping in view the provisions of transfer policy.

With the said direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

The certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner today on the payment of usual charges.