HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1050 of 2025 (S/S) Smt. Madhulika Bhatnagar ….....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Narayan Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to the transfer order dated 10.06.2025, by which the petitioner has been transferred from HMG Hospital, Haridwar to District Hospital Uttarkashi. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was transferred from Kotdwar to Haridwar in the year 2024; now, she has been transferred to Uttarkashi; the mother of the petitioner is old and ailing, but this aspect has not been considered; the name of the petitioner was not published in the tentative list of compulsory transfer. 4. Learned State Counsel would submit that the name of the petitioner was reflected in the names of candidates under compulsory transfer; the petitioner has served for 2 years and 7 months in remote areas, whereas, she has served for 16 years and 6 months in accessible areas. Therefore, she has been transferred. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show as to which provision of The Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017 (“the 2017 Act”) has been violated. Section 17 of the 2017 Act makes provisions with regard to compulsory transfer from accessible areas to remote areas. What is stated is that the petitioner has already completed 16 years and 6 months in accessible areas. In fact, written instructions are placed for the perusal of the Court. It has been taken on record. 2 6. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to make any interference in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 7. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 23.06.2025 Ravi Bisht