Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6323 (UTT)

GANESH CHANDRA MANDOLIYA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSB/316/2026 · 2026-06-02

Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, Subhash Upadhyay

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:4397-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY 2nd June, 2026 WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 316 of 2026 Dr. Ganesh Chandra Mandoliya ------Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ----Respondents Presence:- Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholiya and Mr. Sagar Malara, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. M.S.Bisht, learned Standing Counsel for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT: (per Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.) 1. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the eligibility list prepared by the Department in respect of Veterinary Officers, vide letter dated 18.05.2026, on basis of which, annual transfers have to be made under the provisions of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer of Public Servants Act, 2017. The case of the petitioner is that service of petitioner of 2 years 10 months 9 days as Live Stock Extension Officer is not being counted while preparing the eligibility list. The petitioner is stated to have made representations in this regard before the Department but since the same has not been considered so far, hence the instant writ petition. 1 2026:UHC:4397-DB 2. Learned State Counsel is in receipt of instructions from the Director, Veterinary Department and the stand taken therein is that the service rendered by the petitioner as Live Stock Extension Officer was in a different cadre prior to promotion on the post of Veterinary Officer and as such the service on the post of Life Stock Extension Officer cannot be counted while reckoning the length of service rendered as Veterinary Officer. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the Transfer Act no distinction has been made in this regard. The only relevant factor is the length of service of the employee at a particular station for purposes of the Act. 4. In our opinion, the representation filed by the petitioner for giving him benefit of service rendered by him as Live Stock Extension Officer deserves to be considered taking into consideration the provisions of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer of Public Servants Act, 2017. 2 2026:UHC:4397-DB 5. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent no.2 to examine the issue and take appropriate decision on the representation of the petitioner dated 01.04.2026, within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the instant order along with photo copy of the said representation. The other issues, as have been raised by the petitioner in the representation, be also considered while deciding the same. 6. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.) (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 02.06.2026 Kaushal 3