High CourtsDivision Bench(2011) 11 UK CK 0044

Amar Singh Gunjyal vs State of Uttarakhand and another

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 17 November 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Barin Ghosh, C.J · Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 297 of 2011 (S/B)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 332 words

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—Being aggrieved by the mid session transfer, the present writ petition was filed. It was contended by the petitioner that the said transfer was made not in exigency of service, nor on administrative ground, but only to accommodate respondent no.3. On the last occasion when the matter was listed, learned counsel for respondent no.3 submitted that according to the transfer policy, a person, who is to retire within two years, is entitled to opt for a posting of his choice and, accordingly, the respondent no.3 opted to be posted as District Development Officer, Nainital or as Joint Director, Uttarakhand Rural Development Institute, Udham Singh Nagar. Petitioner is presently posted as the District Development Officer, Nainital. It appears that the State Government, in order to honor the said option of respondent no.3, transferred the petitioner to the post held by respondent no.3 and transferred respondent no.3 to the post held by the petitioner. It was indicated by the learned counsel for respondent no.3 on the last occasion that the post of Joint Director, Uttarakhand Rural Development Institute, Udham Singh Nagar is still lying vacant and the said respondent having had also opted to be posted there has no qualm, if he is posted there.

2.

In the circumstances, the Court called upon the State to inform as to why respondent no.3 could not be accommodated at Udham Singh Nagar in the post of Joint Director, Uttarakhand Rural Development Institute, which is still lying vacant and had to disturb the petitioner in the mid session. The learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the matter was reconsidered by the State and, accordingly, on 16th November, 2011 an order has been passed by the State Government transferring respondent no.3 as Joint Director, Uttarakhand Rural Development Institute, Udham Singh Nagar. In those circumstances, the purpose of transferring the petitioner has come to an end and, accordingly, we quash the order of transfer of the petitioner.

3.

The writ petition stands disposed of.