2026:UHC:3933 SL. No. Dat e Of f ice Not es, r ep or t s, or d er s or p r oceed in g s or d ir ect ion s an d Reg ist r ar ’s or d er w it h Sig n at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PSS 1 2 7 8 / 2 0 2 6 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. Mr. Navnish Negi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy AG, for the State. (2) Petitioner is serving as Administrative Officer. He was transferred from the O/ o District Education Officer, Pauri to the O/ o Deputy Education Officer, Bahadrabad, Haridwar, vide order dated 14.6.2024. His transfer however has been cancelled on 23.4.2026. Thus feeling aggrieved by the cancellation of his transfer, petitioner has approached this Court. (3) Learned State Counsel submits that petitioner had made a request for mutual transfer with respondent no. 5 and based on such request, petitioner was transferred, even though respondent no. 5 had withdrawn his consent for mutual transfer before petitioner was transferred. He submits that factum of withdrawal of consent by respondent no. 5 was not brought to the notice of competent authority and also to the petitioner, as result the competent authority acted upon the request for mutual transfer. Learned State Counsel further submits that once the consent for mutual transfer was withdrawn by one of the employees, then such request for transfer could not be acted upon and this is the reason the transfer of petitioner, made in 2024, was cancelled. He further submits that respondent no. 5 filed Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 1091 of 2024, challenging the relieving order passed against him, in which initially an interim order was passed, however that writ petition was ultimately disposed of on 2.1.2026, granting liberty to respondent no. 5 to make representation before the competent authority 2026:UHC:3933 and the competent authority was asked to take decision on the representation within four weeks. He submits that pursuant to that order passed by this Court, the impugned order has been passed. (4) This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 23.4.2026. Learned State Counsel is right in submitting that once respondent no. 5 withdrew his consent for mutual transfer, then transfer order could not have been passed by relying on such request/ consent, which stood withdrawn. Thus, the competent authority was justified in cancelling the order of transfer. (5) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s father is old and ailing and it is not possible for him to survive in the harsh climate of Pauri and proper medical facilities are also not available at Pauri, therefore petitioner be transferred to some other Sugam place. (6) This Court cannot pass such order to transfer the petitioner at a particular place. However, writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to petitioner to make representation regarding his transfer to some other Sugam place. If he makes such representation within three days from today, decision thereupon shall be taken by the competent authority, as per law, within ten days thereafter. Till decision is taken on petitioner’s representation, status quo as regards his posting shall be maintained. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 2 0 .5 .2 0 2 6 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91 957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.05.20 18:16:48 +05'30' 2026:UHC:3933