2025:UHC:1816-DB 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA 17TH MARCH, 2025 WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO.738 OF 2024 Vaibhav Chand Ramola …...Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …….Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. A.M. Saklani and Mr. M.C. Upadhyay, learned counsel. Counsel for the State : Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Brief Holder for the State. JUDGMENT :(per Mr. G. Narendar, C.J.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the disability certificate issued by the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Tehri Garhwal, dated 14.11.2018, Certificate bearing No.176/2018, which reads as under:- “Post infective Ankylosis of left knee/ ankle. R.P.E. defects of fore L-R (Osteomyelitis). One leg affected and percentage of disability is 43%.” 3. In the next column, with regard to discharge of duties listed at ‘c’ and ‘d’, ‘yes’ and ‘no’ are written respectively. 4. If the certificate is to be believed, the petitioner cannot perform the work by standing or 2025:UHC:1816-DB 2 sitting. In that event, the petitioner, who claims himself to be qualified to do surgery also, would render himself unfit to perform duties. 5. Be that as it may, we do not lay much importance with the certificate as any disability certificate is required to be issued by the competent authority and certificate of competent authority is defined under Section 3(f) of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017, which reads as under:- “3(f) “Certificate of Competent Authority” means a certificate for ‘serious patient’ issued by the All India Medical Institute, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, State Medical Board, authorized medical institutions of the State or State/ district level authority/ committee nominated by the State Medical Department and disability certificate issued by the Competent Authority as provided in the relevant Act for disabilities.” 6. It is sad to see that a person, who has given an undertaking to work for five years in remote areas and who is yet to complete the initial years of training and one who has appeared to have spent almost three years away immediately after his joining to do his study leave, is running away, to shirk his undertaking to work in remote areas and that too, at age 33. 2025:UHC:1816-DB 3 7. It is not his case that he is a person who is covered by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, yet a valiant attempt is made to convince the Court and seek exemption. If youngsters, like the petitioner, resist transfer to remote places, it would only inversely affect seniors, who have put in decades of services, and who would be required to go and serve in the remote areas in the twilight of their career. 8. We do not appreciate the resistance to the transfer. What is even more confounding about resistance to the transfer, is that, not only is the petitioner a qualified professional, but his wife is also a qualified professional and despite the availability of a professional by his side, the reluctance to serve the people at this young age, is certainly not a welcome attitude. 9. Be that as it may, the certificate not being in consonance with the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017, the reliance on the same is of no avail. The claim being unsubstantiated, the writ petition deserves to be rejected and is, accordingly, rejected. 10. Though the Court had a mind to impose 2025:UHC:1816-DB 4 exemplary costs, but keeping in consideration the fact that the petitioner is a doctor and is serving the people, we refrain from doing so. The petitioner shall be better advised to more optimally utilize his time, energy and resources to serve the people in the capacity, in which, he is appointed. 11. As a sequel thereto, pending application, if any, shall stand closed. ________________ G. NARENDAR, C.J. _____________ ALOK MAHRA, J. Dt: 17th March, 2025 NISHANT