2026:UHC:161 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PSS/ 1 1 3 7 / 2 0 2 4 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. No representation for the petitioner Mr. Narayan Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Teacher Education Forum, Uttarakhand has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.06.2024 passed by respondent no.3 to the extent the classification vide order dated 20.04.2024 of the District Education and Training Institute of Uttarakhand for the transfer for the year 2024-25 (contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition). II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing Classification order dated 20.04.2024 along with minutes of meeting dated 08.04.2024 passed by Respondent No.5 (contained as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition).” 3. Petitioner has challenged order dated 13.06.2024 passed by Director General, School Education, Dehradun, wherein it was provided that the categorisation of DIET made in order dated 29.04.2022, shall hold good for transfer year 2025-26. 4. In order dated 29.04.2022, District Institute of Education and Training (DIET) situate in following 7 Districts were categorized as durgam (inaccessible): (a) Pithoragarh (b) Uttarkashi (c) Chamoli 2026:UHC:161 (d) Champawat (e) Pauri Garhwal (f) Rudraprayag (g) Bageshwar, and DIET situate in other Districts were categorised as sugam (accessible). 5. Petitioners have challenged the said categorisation; however, the ground taken is legally not sustainable. 6. As per Transfer Act, 2017, after rendering service at sugam place, for a prescribed length of period, one becomes liable to be transferred to a durgam place and vice versa. 7. Thus, the categorisation of DIET is referable to the provision of Transfer Act. 8. Which DIET has to be categorized as Sugam/Durgam has to be decided by Administrative Authorities as per laid down norms. 9. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the categorisation made by impugned orders. 10. Thus there is no scope for interference in the matter. 11. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 05.01.2026 Mahinder/ 2026:UHC:161