HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1129 of 2025 (S/S) Kabindra Mohan Bhatt and others ….......Petitioners Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others …..... Respondents Present : Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Mr. Rafat Munir Ali and Ms. Irum Zeba, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos.1 to 4. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of the instant petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:- “i. A Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for record and quash the Transfer Orders/Lists dated 19.06.2025, 20.06.2025 and 21.06.2025 (Annexure No.1) to the extent of petitioner no.1 to 37 and revert/retransfer them to their place of posting prior to impugned Transfer Orders dated 19.06.2025, 20.06.2025 and 21.06.2025 i.e. situated in Hill-Districts of Pithoragarh, Bageshwar and Champawat/respective Home Districts. ii. A Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for record and quash the Transfer Orders/Lists dated 07.08.2024 (Annexure No. 2) to the extent of petitioner no.38 to 64 and revert/retransfer them to their place of posting prior to impugned Transfer Orders dated 07.08.2024 i.e. situated in Hill-Districts of Pithoragarh, Bageshwar and Champawat/respective Home Districts. iii. Any other suitable Writ/Order or Directoin which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the Case. iv. Further prays that the Hon’ble Court may direct the respondents to pay the cost of the litigation. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are working as Head Constables/Constables in Uttarakhand Police. By virtue of communications dated 21.06.2017, which is Annexure No.3 to the writ petition and dated 20.12.2020, which is Annexure No.4 to the writ petition, of the respondent no.2/the Director General of Police (“the DGP”), a policy decision was taken that Head Constables/Constables may be posted/transferred in their home Districts; the only exception was that they may not be posted/transferred in their home Tehsil. It is argued that accordingly, the petitioners were posted in the hill Districts of the State of Uttarakhand; they may not be disturbed from their place of postings. Particularly, learned counsel has referred to communication dated 20.12.2020 of the DGP and paras 13 and 15 of it has been referred to. According to para 13, the Head Constables/Constables may be appointed or transferred to their home Districts as per their options and as per para 13 of communication dated 20.12.2020; if any such employee is desirous to stay in his posting in the hill District in the State of Uttarakhand, he may do so. Therefore, it is argued that their transfer orders are against their own policy. 4. The Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for the petitioners, as to how it is against the policy? Which policy prevents transfer of Head Constables/Constables in Uttarakhand Police from their own Districts to some other Districts? Learned counsel for the petitioners replies that there is no absolute prohibition on transfers. 3 5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the communication dated 21.06.2017 and 20.12.2020, merely makes a decision that Head Constables/Constables of Uttarakhand Police may be posted in their home Districts. But, he would submit that there is no bar of transferring them from their home Districts at some other places. 6. In the petition reference has also been made to the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017 (“the Act”). But, admittedly, the provisions of the Act are not applicable on the petitioners, who are Head Constables/Constables in the Uttarakhand Police. It is true that the communication dated 21.06.2017 and 20.12.2020 make provisions that the Head Constables/Constables may be posted in their home Districts, but it nowhere makes any prohibition on their transfers from their home District to any other place. In so far as the petitioner nos.38 to 64 are concerned, they were transferred on 07.08.2024. Now they challenge it. It is much delayed also. 7. In view of what is discussed hereinabove, there is no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 8. The petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 08.07.2025 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA Digitally signed by SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd504686df4d1afc6 0f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC450A84B51 5A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2025.07.08 18:35:03 +05'30'