STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS vs KANTA AGARWAL AND OTHERS

K.M. JOSEPH, C.J

1. Appellants are the respondents in the writ petition. The writ petitioners are the women constables attached to the Police Armed Constabulary

(PAC). By the order, which is impugned in the writ petition, they have been denied transfer to the District Armed Constabulary. The learned

Single Judge has disposed of the matter on the basis that the basis for non-transferring the writ petitioners to the District Armed Constabulary is that

they are women, which cannot be sustained, and has interfered in the matter.Â

We heard Mr. Vikas Pande, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand/appellants and Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned Counsel on

behalf of the respondents/writ petitioners.

One of the grounds taken by the appellants in the appeal is that the writ petition was disposed of without calling for the counter affidavit. We

perused the order-sheet. Apparently, no opportunity, as such, was given to the appellants to file the counter affidavit, though on two occasions, the

case, apparently, was listed but it is shown as Board-Discharged and on the next date, on which the case came up, the final judgment is seen

pronounced.Â

In such circumstances, we would think that the interest of justice would be sub-served if we afford an opportunity to place the pleadings before the

learned Single Judge and grant an opportunity to the writ petitioners to file their response, and the matter is heard and decided.Â

Accordingly, we set aside the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and remit the matter back. We direct that the appellants will file their

counter affidavit(s), without fail, on or before 26.03.2018. It is submitted by Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioners that they will

file their rejoinder affidavit by 06.04.2018. The case will stand listed before the learned Single Judge on 09.04.2018 in the daily cause list. We

request the learned Single Judge to dispose of the matter at the earliest and, if possible, within a period of two weeks from 09.04.2018. However,

we make it clear that we have not expressed any view regarding the merits of the matter.Â

6. The appeal is allowed as above without any order as to cost. Â