Sudhanshu Garg vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Rajiv Sharma, A.C.J.

Per: Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

By means of the present writ petition, petitioner seeks following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned office order dated 5 July 2018 passed by Additional Secretary

Government of Uttarakhand whereby the petitioner who was working as Regional Transport Office of Dehradun has been transferred to the post of

Regional Transport Officer Pauri.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent no.2 to permit the petitioner to continue to work on

the post of Regional Transport Officer Dehradun.â€​

Petitioner is challenging the order dated 5.07.2018, whereby he has been transferred from Dehradun to Pauri. The said order has been passed by

Additional Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Uttarakhand.

Petitioner is a Group ‘A’ Officer of the State Government, who is holding the post of Regional Transport Officer. He was earlier serving at

Pauri and was transferred to District Dehradun vide order dated 9.10.2015, passed by Principal Secretary, Transport Department. By the same order,

respondent no.4 was transferred from District Dehradun to Pauri. Thus, by the impugned transfer order, both of them have been transferred to their

earlier place of posting.

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that his transfer is bad because in the current transfer season, transfers have been made beyond

permissible limit of 10% of the Cadre strength. It is further contended that Home District of respondent no.4 is Tehri, which is within jurisdiction of

Regional Transport Officer, Dehradun, therefore, he cannot be posted at Dehradun. It is further contended that an Officer can be posted at one

Station for four years, while petitioner has been transferred within three years only. It is further contended that as per norms, transfer can be made

only up to 10th June of a Transfer Year while impugned transfer order was passed on 05.07.2018.

Per contra, submission on behalf of respondent no.4 is that petitioner has served for more than 18 years at convenient stations, therefore he was

required to be transferred to a tough station. It is further contended that petitioner’s Home District is Dehradun, therefore his posting at Dehrdun

was against the norms. It is further contended that the deadline for issuing transfer order was extended by 15 days by an order dated 21.06.2018, with

due approval from Hon’ble the Chief Minister.

The State Government in its counter affidavit has stated that Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’ Officers cannot be posted in their Home

District, therefore petitioner was transferred from Dehradun, as it was his Home District. It has further been stated that petitioner has served in

accessible/convenient stations for more than 18 years, therefore he was liable for Compulsory Transfer from accessible to remote area.

It is settled position in law that transfer is an incidence of service and transfers are made according to administrative exigencies. In the instant case,

petitioner has served at accessible places for more than 18 years, therefore as per the norms, he was liable to be transferred to a Hill District.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of State of Haryana vs. Kashmir Singh reported in (2010) 13 SCC 306 has discussed the scope of

interference with transfer orders. Para no.12 of the said judgment is extracted below:

“12. Transfer ordinarily is an incidence of service, and the Courts should be very reluctant to interfere in transfer orders as long as they are not

clearly illegal. In particular, we are of the opinion that transfer and postings of policemen must be left in the discretion of the concerned State

authorities which are in the best position to assess the necessities of the administrative requirements of the situation. The concerned administrative

authorities may be of the opinion that more policemen are required in any particular district and/or another range than in another, depending upon their

assessment of the law and order situation and/or other considerations.

These are purely administrative matters, and it is well-settled that Courts must not ordinarily interfere in administrative matters and should maintain

judicial restraint vide Tata Cellular v. Union of Indiaâ€​

In such view of the matter, there is no scope for interference with the impugned transfer order. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.