Vinod Chauhan vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ

The petitioner is aggrieved by the transfer order dated 20/21.05.2021, whereby he has been transferred from Dehradun Forest Division to Van

Vardhnik, Nainital.

Mr. Narendra Bali, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court:-

(A) According to Section 6 of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017, a transfer can be made only under the following three

conditions:-

(a) Compulsory transfer from accessible area to remote area;

(b) Compulsory transfer from remote area to accessible area; and

(c) Transfer on the basis of request.

However, according to the impugned transfer order, the petitioner is being transferred in public interest.

(B) By the order dated 24.05.2021, the State Government has already declared the Transfer Session 2021-22 as the “Zero Transfer Sessionâ€.

Therefore, the impugned transfer order is patently against both the Act and the order passed by the State Government.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned order.

According to Section 18(5) of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017, the competent authority may issue posting / transfer

orders besides the transfer to be made as per Clauses (1) to (4) on administrative grounds. Therefore, the freedom at the joints given to the

Administration cannot be restricted.

The present transfer order has been passed on the ground of “public interestâ€, thereby meaning it is being passed for “administrative

reasonsâ€. Thus, no fault can be found in the impugned transfer order. Moreover, even if the State Government has declared the Transfer Session

2021-22 as the “Zero Transfer Sessionâ€, it would not preclude the Government, or denude the Government of its power of transferring an

employee on “administrative groundsâ€​.

If the order dated 24.05.2021 were to be taken to be mandatory, it would adversely affect the efficiency of the Administration. Therefore, the

contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned transfer is contrary to the Act and the order is clearly unsustainable.

For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition. It is, hereby, dismissed.

In sequel thereto, pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

No order as to costs.