HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 672 of 2025 (S/S) Uttarakhand Diploma Engineers Mahasangh ….......Petitioner Vs. District Magistrate, Rudraprayag and others ……..... Respondents Present : Mr. Dinesh Chandra Gahatori, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondents. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The petitioner is an Association of Diploma Engineers. The members of the petitioner Association are aggrieved by their deployment in Kedarnath Dham Yatra under the Kedarnath Dham Yatra as Sector/Subsector Officers. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner Association that its members are the Diploma Engineers and the District Magistrate is assigning them duties in Kedarnath Dham Yatra to perform such duties which are derogatory against their position as Technical Experts. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the Association of Diploma Engineers. They are technical persons. Their job is quite distinct, but now, the respondent no.1, the District Magistrate, Rudraprayag is deploying the Diploma Engineers in Kedarnath Dham Yatra for such duties 2 which are derogatory keeping in view the expertise and position of the members of the petitioner’s Association. 5. An order dated 05.04.2023 has been enclosed as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition and it is argued that the similar kind of orders are being issued now a days. 6. A Government servant has to perform duties in view of the exigencies of the service. If a Government employee is restricted to the position to which he is selected, perhaps it may be little difficult for the Government to discharge its function. Kedarnath Dham Yatra under the Char Dham Yatra is one of such Yatras which has gain much importance and definitely, it is the duty of the State Government to ensure safety, security, convenience of the Yatries during that Yatra. Annexure No.2 is the order dated 05.04.2023 of the respondent no.1, does not reveal that the members of the petitioner’s Association are required to do any derogatory act. They have to supervise multiple tasks during the Yatra season. It may not be questioned. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 7. The petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 01.05.2025 Sanjay