Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 2383 (UTT)

MAHENDRA KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSS/505/2025 · 2026-03-09

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:1469 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/505/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Nikhil Bhatt, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Mr. S.S. Lingwal, learned counsel for the respondent-University. 4. Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Petitioner has challenged order dated 11.03.2025 passed by Establishment Officer, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pant Nagar. By that order, his attachment at G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology at Pant Nagar made vide order dated 29.08.2024 was cancelled and petitioner was asked to rejoin duties at Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Jeolikot, District Nainital. 6. It is not in dispute that petitioner was earlier transferred from Pant Nagar to Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Jeolikot; he challenged the order of transfer by filing a writ petition (WPSS No. 244 of 2023). The writ petition was dismissed by coordinate Bench vide order dated 16.02.2023 and the judgment, rendered by coordinate Bench, attained finality. Petitioner was subsequently attached to Pant Nagar on his request, as he had 2026:UHC:1469 pleaded that his wife is unwell and by the impugned order, petitioner’s attachment at Pant Nagar has been cancelled. 7. Since the challenge thrown by petitioner to his transfer from Pant Nagar to Jeolikot in 2023 was repelled by coordinate Bench, therefore, petitioner cannot now challenge the order, whereby his attachment to Pant Nagar was cancelled. No Government Servant or University employee can contend that he be retained at a station where he was attached till eternity, as it is for the employer to decide where to post a particular employee. The decision taken by employer to cancel the attachment of the petitioner to Pant Nagar, thus cannot be faulted. 8. Thus, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the matter. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 09.03.2026 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d 1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F46 10C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.03.09 21:22:50 -07'00' 2026:UHC:1469