AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(per Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)
Petitioner is serving as Senior Veterinary Officer in Animal Husbandry Department of the State. He made a representation to add two years ten months service rendered by him in Pashu Sewa Kendra, Khadkatiya, Chaukhutiya, District – Almora in his service history, for the purpose of transfer to accessible area. His representation was rejected by the Director (Animal Husbandry) vide order dated 05.08.2026. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
I- Issue a writ, rule, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for records and to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 05.08.2026 passed by respondent no.2, whereby he has rejected the representation of petitioner by stating that since there is no apparent provision under the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer of Public Servants Act, 2017 to add the past services of accessible / remote areas of different cadre for the purposes of transfer in the services of instant promoted cadre of petitioner. (Annexure No.8) (Page No. 89-90)
II- Issue a writ, rule, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding and directing the Respondent no.2 to add the services of 2 Years 10 Months and 9 Days, rendered by petitioner at Pashu Seva Kendra, Khadkatiya, Chaukhutiya, District Almora in the service history of petitioner, and accordingly amend the Service History of petitioner, as maintained by Respondent department.
III- Issue a writ, rule, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding and directing the respondents to include the name of petitioner in the future eligibility list, prepared under the provisions of Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017 for Compulsory Transfer from Remote Areas to Accessible Areas and consider his name for transfer against the future vacancies or resultant vacancies.
IV- Issue any other, other writ, rule, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
V- Cost of petition may be awarded in favour of petitioners.
The reason assigned for rejecting petitioner’s representation is that there is no provision in the Annual Transfer Act, 2017 for adding the services rendered by a government servant in some other cadre.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 7(c) of the Transfer Act, 2017 provides for taking into account the entire service rendered by an employee, therefore, the reason assigned for rejecting petitioner’s representation is legally unsustainable. He further submits that similar provision is made in Section 11(b) of the Transfer Act, 2017.
For ready reference Section 7(b) and Section 11(b) of the Transfer Act, 2017 are reproduced below:
“7. Norms of compulsory transfer from
accessible area to remote area—7. There shall be following norms for compulsory transfer from accessible areas to remote areas; namely: -
(a)………
(b)The employees, who are working for less than 04 years at present place of posting in accessible area but during whole service period have served in accessible area for more than 10 years, shall also be compulsorily transferred from accessible area to remote area subject to availability of vacancies/posts in remote area as above: Kind of Annual transfer Norms of compulsory transfer from accessible area to remote area Identification and disclosure of accessible and remote areas.
Provided that for the counting of total service period in accessible area the proviso of definition of accessible area given in Appendix specified in section 3 of this Act shall also be taken into consideration;”
“11. Maximum Ceiling of Compulsory
Transfer—11. The maximum ceiling of compulsory transfer from a remote area to accessible area shall be as follows; namely:-
(a)……..
(b)Such employees who are posted for more than 03 years at their place of posting or rendered services for more than 10 years, during the whole service period in remote area shall be identified for transfer in descending order according to the total period of posting in remote area in their whole service period upto the limit of availability of vacancies in accessible area.”
Per contra, learned State Counsel, submits that petitioner is seeking transfer from remote to accessible area and his length of service in remote area is falling short of what is required, therefore, he has filed this writ petition for adding the earlier service rendered by him at Chaukhutiya, District – Almora, in some other cadre.
He further submits that Section 7 of the Transfer Act, 2017 is attracted only in case of compulsory transfer from accessible area to remote area, therefore, reliance on the said provision by petitioner is misplaced.
He further submits that petitioner, was appointed as a group ‘C’ employee against the post of Livestock Extension Officer; and he was sponsored by the State Government for admission in Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry (for Short ‘B.V.Sc. & A.H.’) course against a seat reserved for departmental candidate and petitioner pursued B.V.Sc & A.H. course at Government’s expense and during paid leave and, upon successful completion of that course, he was inducted into a new service, namely, Veterinary Officer.
Learned State Counsel, thus, submits that since petitioner is now a member of a new cadre i.e. Veterinary Officer which requires different academic qualification, therefore, service rendered by the petitioner at some remote place while serving as Livestock Extension Officer cannot be added in the present service history of the petitioner.
It is further contended that since petitioner was inducted in a new cadre, therefore, his seniority was drawn afresh as per the recruitment rules applicable to Veterinary Officers and, for all intents and purposes, petitioner is a fresh appointee in the cadre of Veterinary Officer.
Learned State Counsel, thus, submits that petitioner cannot carry the birth mark of his past service after induction into a new cadre.
We do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by Director (Animal Husbandry) impugned in this writ petition. It is not disputed that petitioner was inducted in an entirely different cadre of Veterinary Officer for which qualification needed is B.V.Sc & A.H.
Law is well settled that a promotee cannot carry birth marks after induction into a different cadre. In other words, once employees from different entry streams (such as direct recruits, departmental promotees or fast track exam entrants) are promoted into a single unified cadre, their source of origin (birth mark) is completely erased and they fuse into a single class and must be treated equally regarding pay, seniority and service conditions.
The expression “service rendered during whole service period” used in Section 11(b) of the Transfer Act, 2017 refers to the service rendered in the same cadre and if a government servant is inducted into a different cadre, which requires different/ higher qualification for appointment, then service rendered by him in a remote area in the previous cadre cannot be added to the service rendered by him after induction in a new cadre.
Learned State Counsel is right in submitting that Section 7 is attracted in the case of compulsory transfer from accessible area to remote area only and it is not applicable in the present case as petitioner is desirous of transfer from remote to an accessible area.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.