Ashok Kumar Gupta vs State of Uttarakhand and others.

Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 429 of 2016 challenges the order dated 03.11.2016 transferring him from Champawat Forest Division to Working Plan Office, Tonse Forest Division, Purola, District Uttarkashi. This is the main prayer.

The petitioner appears to have taken three contentions, which are as follows:

i) He is a DFO. Unless a person becomes a Conservator of Forest, he cannot be posted as a Working Plan Officer. ii) There are only four vacancies of Working Plan Officer. All are occupied.

iii) There is a ''Zero'' session of transfer.

The petitioner has a case that there are Circulars of the Chief Secretary.

In the writ petition, petitioner obtained an interim order of stay. It was mentioned in the interim order also that it will be open to the respondents to appoint Working Plan Officer of the rank of Conservator of Forest, as per norms laid down by the Government.

Writ Petition No. 11 of 2017 (SB) is filed challenging the order, by which the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Conservator

of Forest and with reference to the impugned order in Writ Petition No. 429 of 2016 (SB), he is posted as the Working Plan Officer.

We heard Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and also Sri Hem Chandra Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the party respondent.

There is a case for the petitioner that actually, all four sanctioned posts are occupied by the persons named in the writ petition.

Learned Chief Standing Counsel would submit that the order impugned in Writ Petition No. 11 of 2017 (SB) has been cancelled by order dated 12.01.2017. There is no dispute that the petitioner has been promoted as Conservator of Forest. There is a case for the State that the petitioner has been serving in District Champawat for a long time (six years).

In the light of the fact that the petitioner was not a Conservator of Forest at the time when the impugned order in Writ Petition No. 429 of 2016 (SB) was passed, the said writ petition must be allowed and the order dated 03.11.2016 transferring him will stand quashed. The order impugned in Writ Petition No. 11 of 2017 (SB) has already been cancelled.

We only make it clear that the judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner being considered for posting as a Working Plan Officer, but we also leave open the contentions of the petitioner that there are no vacancies of Working Plan Officer, though it is a case of the Chief Standing Counsel that there are vacancies. We leave open the contention of the petitioner regarding the embargo against the transfer on the basis of the ensuing election.

The writ petitions stand disposed of.