Uttarakhand High Court
Punit Bhardwaj vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 9 October, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 UTR 822
Bench: Rajiv Sharma, Manoj K. Tiwari
Reserved on September 04, 2018
Pronounced on October 09, 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 225 of 2018
Punit Bhardwaj ... Petitioner
Vs
State of Uttarakhand & others ... Respondents
Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
Coram: Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, ACJ
Hon'ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.
Per: Hon'ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.
1. Petitioner is serving as Lecturer (Pharmacy) in Government Polytechnic, Dwarahat since 2009. He is aggrieved by his transfer to Government Polytechnic, Nainital vide order dated 08.06.2018 passed by Director, Technical Education.
2. The reliefs, sought in the writ petition, are as follows:-
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records and quashing the Order dated 8th June, 2018 issued by the Director, Technical Education, Uttarakhand so far as it relates to the petitioner, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Govt. Polytechnic Dwarahat (Almora) to Govt. Polytechnic Nainital (Nainital) on the post of Lecturer (Pharmacy).
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents consider the case of the petitioner for compulsory transfer as per his 2nd option for IRDT, Dehradun, inasmuch as the said vacancy has not been supplied in the present Transfer 2 Order and the incumbent occupying the post has been transferred to Govt. Polytechnic Jakhanidhar.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he has opted for his transfer to Government Polytechnic, Dehradun (first option) and IRDT, Dehradun (second option), but instead of transferring him to Dehradun he was transferred to Nainital.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Director, Technical Education in which it is stated that petitioner was required to indicate ten places in order of preference where he wanted to be transferred, but he indicated choice for only two institutions i.e. Government Polytechnic, Dehradun and IRDT, Dehradun. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that one Sri Raghuvendra Singh, Lecturer (Pharmacy) was more than 55 years of age, therefore, his request for transfer to Government Polytechnic, Dehradun was acceded to. It is further stated that so far as posting as Assistant Secretary in IRDT, Dehradun is concerned, it is open for all Lecturers, irrespective of their subject/branch. It was further stated that presently one Sri Sunil Kumar is serving as Assistant Secretary whose services in IRDT, Dehradun are indispensable at the moment due to on going selection for Group 'C' post and the litigation pending against the said selection, as Sri Sunil Kumar is in the know of things.
4. It is settled position in law that transfer is an incidence of service and transfers are made according to administrative exigencies. In the instant case, petitioner has served at Dwarahat for nine years, therefore, as per norms, he was liable to be transferred to some other place.
3Moreover, Government Polytechnic, Nainital is categorized as Sugam (convenient) place.
5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of State of Haryana vs. Kashmir Singh reported in (2010) 13 SCC 306 has discussed the scope of interference with transfer orders. Para no.12 of the said judgment is extracted below:
"12. Transfer ordinarily is an incidence of service, and the Courts should be very reluctant to interfere in transfer orders as long as they are not clearly illegal. In particular, we are of the opinion that transfer and postings of policemen must be left in the discretion of the concerned State authorities which are in the best position to assess the necessities of the administrative requirements of the situation. The concerned administrative authorities may be of the opinion that more policemen are required in any particular district and/or another range than in another, depending upon their assessment of the law and order situation and/or other considerations. These are purely administrative matters, and it is well-settled that Courts must not ordinarily interfere in administrative matters and should maintain judicial restraint vide Tata Cellular v. Union of India"
6. In such view of the matter, there is no scope for interference with the impugned transfer order. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
7. No order as to costs.
(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.) (Rajiv Sharma, ACJ) 09.10.2018 Aswal