2025:UHC:5114-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 238 OF 2025 18th June, 2025 Dr. Vishal Prabhakar …… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and and Others …… Respondents Presence:- Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Mamta Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. --------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Sri Alok Mahra) Petitioner is serving as Medical Officer, Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Daulatpur, District Haridwar and he has filed the above noted writ petition, challenging the order dated 10.06.2025, whereby the petitioner has been transferred to Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Chaka, Tehri. 2. The transfer of the petitioner has been made under the provision contained in Section 7(1)(a) of the Annual Transfer Act, in public interest. The wife of the petitioner, who is also serving as Medical Officer on the same department, has 1 2025:UHC:5114-DB been exempted from transfer on account of disability of their son. 3. Brief facts narrated by the petitioner in the writ petition are as hereunder:- Petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer vide order dated 20.08.2013 and he joined at State Ayurvedic Hospital, Manglaur, District Haridwar. Thereafter, petitioner was transferred to District Ayurvedic Hospital, Roorkee, where, he joined on 10.01.2014 and served there till 27.10.2017. Thereafter, petitioner was transferred to Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Haridwar, where, he joined on 28.10.2017 and he is working in the same place, till his present transfer. It is pertinent to mention here that since his appointment in the year 2013, petitioner is serving in accessible area. The contention of the petitioner is that his son is mentally challenged and physically handicapped and is also suffering from epilepsy disease, therefore, he be exempted from purview of compulsory transfer and, in the alternate, petitioner may be posted in some place on his request. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2 2025:UHC:5114-DB 5. From perusal of the record, it is revealed that petitioner was transferred in the last transfer season also to Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Pauri. He challenged the said transfer order by preferring Writ Petition (S/B) No. 306 of 2024 and this Court vide its order dated 13.06.2024 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent-authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner. In pursuance of the representation, petitioner was permitted to continue at Daulatpur, District Haridwar. 6. It is apparent that the petitioner has been continuously working in the accessible areas since his appointment that is for more than twelve years in District Haridwar, which is an accessible area and he was in the zone of consideration for compulsory transfer under the provisions contained in Section 7(1)(a) of the Annual Transfer Act, as such, we find no infirmity in the order impugned in the writ petition. 7. Moreover, wife of the petitioner is also serving in accessible area and she has been exempted from purview of compulsory transfer taking into consideration the medical condition of their son. 8. It goes without saying that transfer is exigency of service and it is upon the employer to post persons as per the requirement of the department and employee could not 3 2025:UHC:5114-DB dictate term to his employer to post him in a particular place or post of his choice. No government servant holding transferable post can insist that he may be posted at a place of his choice forever. 9. Judicial interference with transfer of government employees has to be minimal. It is settled position in law that a transfer order can be interfered with only when the same is passed in violation of statutory rules or such transfer is infected with malice. No such ground is taken in the present writ petition. Since, the transfer order has been passed as per the provisions of the Act, we find no infirmity in the impugned transfer order. Thus, there is no scope for interference in the matter. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. ________________ G. NARENDAR, C.J. ____________ ALOK MAHRA, J. Dt: 18th June, 2025 Ujjwal 4