Pushkar Lal Tamta vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Advocate for respondent No.5, and, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 22.06.2019 transferring him from Takula in District Almora, to Didihaat in District Pithoragarh; a writ of certiorari to quash the transfer order dated 22.06.2019 in so far as it relates to respondent No.5; and a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner in the category of transfer on request.

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the petitioner joined service as a Sub-Deputy Inspector of Schools in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh on 08.07.1997. When he joined the service, Bageshwar formed part of District Almora and, consequently, the petitioner's home District was recorded, in his Service Register, as Almora. A few months after he joined service, Bageshwar District was carved out of District Almora on 15.09.1997. The petitioner claims that, while he is from District Bageshwar, his service records have not been suitably changed to indicate his home District as District Bageshwar; and his home District continues to be shown only as Almora.

Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of Public Service Tribunal seeking a change of his home District, from Almora to Bageshwar, in his service record; and the Public Service Tribunal had granted the relief sought for by him, in its order dated 15.07.2019. However, no details are furnished to this Court either regarding the number of the claim petition filed before the Public Service Tribunal, or the contents of the order passed by the Public Service Tribunal in this regard.

The petitioner has been working in remote areas for the past more than 07 years, and for the past 04 years in the very same place i.e. Takula in District Almora, which is also a remote area. The petitioner's wife is said to be working as an Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) in GGIC, Block Daulaghat, Hawalbagh, District Almora which is also a durgam area. The petitioner sought transfer on request to Dauladevi or for his retention at Takula, both of which are in Almora District. Since his name was also included in the compulsory list of transfer from remote areas to accessible areas, the petitioner, in the option exercised by him, for compulsory transfer from remote areas to accessible areas, indicated his option as Kashipur and Bajpur, both in Udham Singh Nagar District. The petitioner was, however, transferred to Didihaat in Pithoragarh District which, though an accessible area, was not one of the options exercised by the petitioner. The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court contending that the fifth respondent, though junior to him, was given the option of being posted at Kashipur which was amongst the options exercised by him. On an application being filed, seeking amendment of the cause title to include Mrs. Geetika Joshi as the 5th respondent therein, the amendment application was ordered. At our directions, the State Government has produced the records. It is evident therefrom that, while the petitioner had sought transfer on request, on spouse grounds, to Dauladevi and Takula in District Almora, Mrs. Geetika Joshi (respondent No.5) had sought transfer on request to Haldwani and Ramnagar in Nainital District, and Rudrapur and Kashipur in District Udham Singh Nagar.

As noted hereinabove, the petitioner did not exercise his options, to be posted at Kashipur when he requested for transfer on spouse grounds; and he had exercised such an option only for compulsory transfer from remote areas to accessible areas. On the ground that he could not be transferred to Almora District since that was his home District, and since he had not exercised any other option but for these two places in Almora District for transfer on request, the petitioner was transferred to Didihaat in Pithoragarh District; and the 5th respondent was transferred, at her request, to the last of her options i.e. Kashipur in District Udham Singh Nagar. Since the 5th respondent was transferred at her request to Kashipur, and the post at Kashipur was occupied by her, the petitioner's option to be posted at Kashipur, when the list of compulsory transfer from remote areas to accessible areas was taken up, could not be favourably considered.

While Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that compulsory transfer from remote areas to accessible areas should have been effected prior to request transfers being considered, Section 17 of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer For Public Servants Act, 2017 requires the Transfer Committee to consider the transfer proposal under the Act in the following order (a) Compulsory transfer from accessible places to remote areas. Thereafter (b) Transfer on the basis of request; and thereafter (c) Compulsory transfer from remote area to accessible area.

Consequently, request transfers were considered before compulsory transfers from remote areas to accessible areas strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer For Public Servants Act, 2017. When the exercise of transfer, from remote areas to accessible areas, was taken up, the petitioner was working at Takula for the past 04 years and was found to fall within the purview of compulsory transfers. As he had exercised his options only to Kashipur and Bajpur for compulsory transfer, and since these posts were already occupied by other officers, his request could not be acceded to.

While the action of the respondent is in accordance with the provisions of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer For Public Servants Act, 2017, the petitioner's case for transfer on spouse grounds necessitates consideration by the authorities concerned. If as is now contended before us, by Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner's home District is Bageshwar and not Almora; and the Public Service Tribunal has so held, then there is, evidently, no prohibition in law for him to be posted in Almora District, other than at Takula, to enable him to stay in close proximity to the place where his wife is working as an Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) at Daulaghat. These are all matters, however, for the competent authority to consider. Suffice it, therefore, to permit the petitioner to make a detailed representation, to the second respondent in this regard.

Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that such a representation would be made within one week from today. In case, any such representation is made, the second respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders afresh, and in accordance with law, within 10 days from the date of receipt of the said representation; and examine his request to be posted in close proximity to the place where his wife is working.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.