Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 12573 (UTT)

ARCHANA CHAUHAN v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSS/1704/2025 · 2025-10-16

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:9302 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/1704/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Narayan Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Prosecuting Officer in 2024 and she was posted at Tehri. After serving for about one year at Tehri, she was transferred to Dehradun, on 05.06.2025. Her transfer to Dehradun has now been cancelled by the State Government vide order dated 08.10.2025. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was transferred to Dehradun under Spouse Policy, as her husband was serving as Excise Constable at Dehradun, therefore, cancellation of the transfer order passed in favour of the petitioner amounts to her re-transfer to Tehri, which would be unjust. 5. Learned State Counsel, per contra submits that petitioner’s husband has been transferred to Uttarkashi; petitioner was transferred by Director, Prosecution, who is not competent for the purpose and when the matter was brought to the notice of the State Government, the State Government cancelled all the orders of transfer passed by Director, Prosecution. He further submits that as per the transfer Act and also as per the 2025:UHC:9302 policy applicable in the State, every Government servant, upon his/her appointment, is required to serve at durgam places for a prescribed period of time and his/her request of transfer to sugam place can be considered only thereafter. He submits that petitioner managed to get herself transferred to Dehradun within a year of her appointment, which in itself speaks volumes about the influence, which petitioner was able to wield in the department. 6. This Court do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned cancellation order. 7. The writ petition, however, is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make representation regarding her transfer. If she makes such representation to the Competent Authority, the same shall be considered and dealt with, as per law, within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 16.10.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df 006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA8 75643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.10.16 17:56:05 +05'30'