Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7702 (UTT)

AJAYVEER SINGH NEGI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSS/972/2025 · 2025-06-16

Rakesh Thapliyal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:5059 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS No. 972 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State. 3. By the instant petition the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the records and quashing the impugned order dated 10.06.2025 (annexed as Annexure No. 8 to this writ petition) passed by respondent no. 2 so far it relates to petitioner and the respondent no. 5 in the terms of Section 7(d)(iii) read with Section 3(d) of the Transfer Act, 2017 (annexed as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to provide exemption to the petitioner from the compulsory transfer from Accessible Area to Remote Area in the terms of options form dated 30.04.2025 (annexed as Annexure No. 5 to this writ petition) and the Section 7(d)(iii) read with Section 3(d) of the Transfer Act, 2017 (annexed as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition). 4. By the order impugned dated 10.06.2025 the petitioner has been transferred from Rishikul Government Ayurvedic Pharmacy, Haridwar to Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Mandalak, District Champawat in public interest. The order is being challenged on the ground that earlier the petitioner appeared before the Medical Board and the Medical Board came into conclusion that the petitioner needs regular treatment and lumbar supports due to suffering from FIC of Caries Spine (Dorsal & Lumbar) and based on the aforesaid report of the Medical Board the petitioner was granted leave and thereafter by order dated 07.01.2022 the petitioner was transferred from Government Ayurvedic Hospital Kunjkhal Pauri 2025:UHC:5059 Garhwal to Rishikul Pharmacy, Haridwar. 5. On 30.04.2025 the petitioner submitted a representation requesting for exemption from the transfer due to the serious illness/disability; despite this, the petitioner is not exempted from transfer by the order impugned from Rishikul Rajkiya Ayurvedic Pharmacy, Haridwar to Rajkiya Ayurvedic Chikitsalaya Mandalak Champawat in public interest. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to get exemption from compulsory transfer in view of the opinion of the Medical Board. 7. Apart from this, learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that even otherwise the petitioner was not asked to furnish any option for his transfer, which is mandatory requirement in view of Rule 9 of the Transfer Act, therefore, the impugned transfer order is bad. 8. On the other side, learned Deputy Advocate General Mr. Ganesh Kandpal submits that the report of the Medical Board is 9 years old and earlier the petitioner served in Haridwar for 10 years and he wants to be remain at Haridwar. He further submits that by virtue of the Transfer Act the petitioner is rightly transferred in the public interest and since the transfer is the exigency of service, therefore, no interference is warranted. 9. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and further after perusing the records, this court is of the view that on the basis of the earlier report of the Medical Board the petitioner was transferred to Haridwar and now by the order impugned the petitioner has been transferred to District Nainital that too in the public interest and the medical ground is of no help since the report of the Medical Board is old one. 10. Apart from this, it is settled principle of law that transfer is the exigency of service, therefore, the judicial interference is not warranted particularly when the person concerned is being transferred in a public interest. 11. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 16.06.2025 PR 2025:UHC:5059