Suresh Chandra vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J

Heard Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

The petitioner, an Associate Professor working in the Government Post Graduate Degree College, Uttarkashi has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the decision of the respondent dated 21.06.2019; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reconsider his case, take a decision on the option given by the petitioner dated 13.05.2019, and post him at the Government Post Graduate College, Doiwala or the Government Post Graduate College, Rishikesh or the Government Post Graduate College, Dakpatthar or the Government Post Graduate College, Ramnagar.

This case has a chequered history. The petitioner has been working in the remote areas of the State of Uttarakhand for the past 22 years ever since 1997 when he was appointed as a Lecturer in the Government Degree College, Joshimath.

During the year 2018-19, the petitioner exercised his options, on 25.04.2018, to be transferred and posted at the Government Post Graduate College, Dakpatthar, District Dehradun, the Government Post Graduate College, Ramnagar, District Nainital, the Government Post Graduate College, Doiwala, Dehradun, the Government Degree College, Laksar, and the Government Post Graduate College, Gopeshwar. While the Government Post Graduate College, Dakpatthar, Dehradun was his first choice, the Government Post Graduate College, Gopeshwar was his second option. The petitioner was, however, transferred, by proceedings dated 13.09.2018, to the Government Post Graduate College, Laksar, District Haridwar which was the petitioner's fifth option.

Aggrieved thereby the petitioner submitted a representation on 15.09.2018, to the Director, Higher Education. On the ground that no action was taken thereupon, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing Writ Petition (M/S) No. 51 of 2019. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by his order in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 51 of 2019 dated 04.02.2019, directed respondent Nos. 2 & 3 therein i.e. the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand and the Director, Higher Education, to consider the petitioner's representation dated 15.09.2018; treat the writ petition and the grounds taken therein, to be the representation; and to decide the same within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

While a copy of the petitioner's representation dated 15.09.2018 has not been enclosed along with the present writ petition, the petitioner's representation was considered, and an order dated 21.06.2019 was passed by the Principal Secretary, Higher Education transferring the petitioner to the Government Post Graduate College, Gopeshwar. The petitioner claims that, even before the said order was passed, he had revised his options, by his letter dated 11.05.2019, to be transferred and posted to the Government Post Graduate College, Doiwala, District Dehradun, the Government Post Graduate College, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, the Government Post Graduate College, Dakpatthar, District Dehradun, and the Government Post Graduate College, Ramnagar, District Nainital. By his letter dated 11.05.2019, the petitioner revised the option executed by him earlier, deleted his earlier options of Gopeshwar and Laskar, and instead included the Government Post Graduate College, Rishikesh, District Dehradun in his latest option form.

In terms of the order passed by this Court on 04.02.2019, the petitioner's representation was considered and, by order dated 21.06.2019, he was posted at the Government Post Graduate College, Gopeshwar which was the second option exercised by him in his letter dated 25.04.2018. It also appears, from the proceedings dated 21.06.2019, that the petitioner had, in his representation dated 15.09.2018, prayed for cancellation of his transfer from Khanpur, District Haridwar, and to be transferred to the Government Post Graduate College, Chamoli, which is the very same Government Post Graduate College at Gopeshwar. The petitioner's request, as made in his representation dated 15.09.2018, was acceded to; and he was transferred to Gopeshwar.

Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, since no action was taken by the respondents on his representation till June 2019, and as the petitioner had in the meanwhile, by his letter dated 11.05.2019, changed his option, the respondents ought to have considered his present option, and not the earlier options exercised by him; though the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer For Public Servants Act, 2017 requires the entire exercise of effecting transfers to be completed by the 10th of June each year (Section 24 of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer For Public Servants Act, 2017), transfers were effected in the year 2018 in September, and even in the present year only by the end of June, and not before the cut of date of 10th June; and, since the earlier option was for the session 2018-19 and the present option is for the Session 2019-20, the petitioner was entitled to again change his option as he was entitled, as a matter of right, to do so.

While we see no reason to disagree with the submission of Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the obligation placed on the authorities concerned to effect transfers before 10th June each year, should be discharged by them, the mere fact that there has been some delay in effecting transfers, would not vitiate the transfer exercise itself. In the present case the petitioner had, in his option form submitted on 25.04.2018, exercised his option to five places which included Gopeshwar and Khanpur. When he was transferred as per his choice to Khanpur, he submitted a representation contending that he should, instead, be transferred to Gopeshwar, and not to Khanpur. In the light of the order passed by this Court on 04.02.2019, the petitioner's representation was favourably considered, and he was transferred and posted at Gopeshwar to which place he had sought transfer in his representation dated 15.09.2018.

The petitioner has again changed his option, and now contends that he should be posted in the places for which he has exercised his option in May 2019. The petitioner cannot keep changing his options whimsically. The very object of calling upon the employee to furnish a list of ten options is to enable the authorities concerned to post him at one of the ten places of his choice. Instead of giving his option for ten places, the petitioner had given his options only for five places in his representation dated 25.04.2018.

Since Khanpur in Haridwar District was amongst the five places which the petitioner has executed his option for, he was transferred thereto by order dated 13.09.2018. The petitioner, then, contended that it is not Khanpur to which ought to have been transferred, but to Gopeshwar in the Chamoli District. In the light of the order passed by this Court on 04.02.2019, this request was also favorably considered and, by the order impugned in the present writ petition dated 21.06.2019, he has been transferred to Gopeswar. The petitioner now takes a u-turn, and claims that he should be transferred to neither Khanpur nor Gopeswar, but to four other places which he has identified, one at Ramnagar in Nainital District, and the other three places in Dehradun District.

We are satisfied that the authorities concerned cannot be asked to keep changing the places to which the petitioner should be transferred and posted. The frequent whimsical change in the options exercised by the petitioner would not justify any direction being issued by this Court to the respondents to cater to the petitioner's whims and fancies.

As noted hereinabove, the petitioner was posted earlier at Khanpur which was one amongst the places of his choice. He was, thereafter, transferred and posted at Gopeswar at his request, which again was one of the places of his choice. His contention that he should now be posted either in Dehradun District or in Nainital District, are not matters which this Court, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would examine. Save in cases where the impugned orders of transfers are vitiated by malice, or are contrary to law, no interference is called for. We are satisfied that the order impugned in this writ petition, does not suffer from any such infirmity or illegality.

The writ petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.

No costs.