HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 915 of 2025 (S/S) Neeta Rana ….....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Bisht, Additional C.S.C. for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to the eligibility list dated 08.05.2025, issued by the respondent no.2/Director, Ayurvedic and Unani Services, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. By it, the list of eligible candidates have been published for compulsory transfer. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The petitioner was earlier appointed as pharmacist in the Ayurvedic Department on 11.12.2009. She worked at various places. At present, she is working at Government Allopathic Hospital, Koti Sahespur, District Dehradun. By the impugned eligibility list, she is proposed to be transferred to remote areas. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was posted at remote area in District Almora between 10.06.2023 and 11.06.2024. Thereafter, at her request, due to family circumstances, she was posted in a hospital at Sahespur, where she is presently posted; it is less than four months for her at the present place of posting and she has been held eligible for transfer to a remote area; prior to 2017, there was no categorization of accessible and remote areas for the purpose of transfer. 5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the petitioner had worked in remote areas for 4 years and 4 months, and in accessible areas, she has already worked for 10 years and 11 months; 2 under Section 7 of The Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017 (“the Act”), the petitioner falls under the category of compulsory transfer. 6. Section 7 of the Act is as follows:- “7. There shall be following norms for compulsory transfer from accessible areas to remote areas; namely: - (a) The employees, who is posted for 04 years or more at present place of posting in accessible area shall be compulsorily transferred subject to the number of vacancies available and anticipated under section 10 in remote area; (b) The employees, who are working for less than 04 years at present place of posting in accessible area but during whole service period have served in accessible area for more than 10 years, shall also be compulsorily transferred from accessible area to remote area subject to availability of vacancies/posts in remote area as above: Provided that for the counting of total service period in accessible area the proviso of definition of accessible area given in Appendix specified in section 3 of this Act shall also be taken into consideration; (c) ......................................................................................... (d) .......................................................................................” 7. It is true that an employee, who is posted for four years at accessible area shall fall within the zone of compulsory transfer, but sub-Section (b) of Section 7 of the Act carves out an exception to it that if a person has worked for less than 04 years at an accessible area, he may be considered under compulsory zone of transfer, if he has worked for more than 10 years in accessible area. 8. In fact, it is admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that initially, the petitioner joined the services on 26.11.2009 in remote area, but from 12.03.2013 to 30.06.2017, she was attached in accessible area, and then again from 30.06.2017 to 15.06.2023, she was posted in accessible area. It is submitted that from 10.06.2023 to 11.06.2024, the petitioner was posted at remote area, and thereafter, from 12.06.2024, she is presently posted in accessible area. 9. It is not disputed that the petitioner has been posted in accessible area for more than 10 years. Therefore, in view of Section 7(b) of the Act, she falls within the zone of compulsory transfer, and 3 there is no error in publishing the eligibility list. Therefore, there is no reason to make any interference. Accordingly the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. The writ petition is dismissed. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 10.06.2025 Ravi Bisht