2025:UHC:2821-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS SPA No. 955 of 2017 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. P.S. Bisht, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand/appellants. 2. Mr. Kurban Ali, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. This intra-court Appeal is directed against final order dated 19.04.2017, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 861 of 2015. 4. The impugned order is extracted below for ready reference:- “ The petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teacher (Elementary School) and allocated to District Pithoragarh on the basis of merit list. The petitioners have opted for District Udham Singh Nagar. The case of the respondents, in a nutshell, is that the transfer from District Pithoragarh to District Udham Singh Nagar would disturb their seniority. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that his clients are ready and willing to be placed at the bottom of the seniority list of the Assistant Teacher (Elementary School), if they are transferred, to District Udham Singh Nagar. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for transfer from District Pithoragarh to District Udham Singh Nagar, as per their option without disturbing the seniority of Assistant Teachers (Elementary School), already 2025:UHC:2821-DB posted in District Udham Singh Nagar subject to availability of vacancy. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. ” 5. State has challenged the order, passed by learned Single Judge on the ground that the writ petition filed by respondents was decided without inviting counter affidavit. 6. Mr. Kurban Ali, learned counsel for respondents submits that counter affidavit was not only invited, but also filed by Director, Elementary Education. He thus submits that the Appeal is bereft of merit and is liable to be dismissed for taking a ground which is factually incorrect. 7. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioners (respondents herein) participated in a common selection for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Government Primary Schools, which was held in respect of all thirteen districts in State of Uttarakhand. It was the stand taken by the writ petitioners before the writ Court, that by virtue of their higher merit in the selection, they were entitled to be allotted district of their first choice i.e. District Udham Singh Nagar and the Authorities erred in allotting them post of 2025:UHC:2821-DB Assistant Teacher in District Almora. 8. Learned State Counsel submits that all the writ petitioners belong to OBC category and there was no vacancy available for OBC category candidates in District Udham Singh Nagar, therefore, writ petitioners could not be allotted any post in District Udham Singh Nagar and learned Single Judge erred in directing for their transfer to Udham Singh Nagar. 9. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners (respondents herein) however submits that learned writ Court has simply directed the Authorities to consider case of the writ petitioners for transfer to District Udham Singh Nagar, as per their option, without disturbing the seniority of Assistant Teachers (Primary) already serving in District Udham Singh Nagar, and consideration of claim of writ petitioners would be subject to availability of vacancies. 10. We find force in the said submission. Since learned writ Court has directed the Authorities to examine the claim of the writ petitioners for transfer to Udham Singh Nagar, as per their ranking in the merit list and it is also provided that if request made by writ 2025:UHC:2821-DB petitioners for transfer to Udham Singh Nagar is acceded to, then it shall not disturb the settled inter-se seniority of Assistant Teachers, and also in view of statement given by Mr. Kurban Ali, Advocate, that his clients are ready to be placed at the bottom of the seniority list in District Udham Singh Nagar, if they are transferred, we decline to interfere with the impugned order. 11. In such view of the matter, the Special Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 21.04.2025 Shiksha SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24 b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542 D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9 , cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.04.23 11:12:28 +05'30'