2026:UHC:4455 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/1456/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Harendra Belwal, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. 3. Petitioner was engaged through outsourcing in G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology to perform duties of Generator Operator. The outsourcing agency has transferred the petitioner from Pantnagar to Haridwar, vide order dated 30.04.2026. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the token issued to the petitioner by the outsourcing agency has been cancelled without providing any opportunity of hearing. It is further contended that the order impugned is stigmatic in nature. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the University, however, submits that petitioner’s son Mr. Sahid Ansari is creating problem in the University campus, he is in the habit of harassing girl students and he along with other antisocial elements does various nefarious activities within University campus for which several warnings were given to petitioner and 2026:UHC:4455 also his son. He points out that written complaints were received against petitioner’s son by the parents of girls students studying in the University and the matter was also reported to the police. He further points out that petitioner’s son was barred from University campus by Director (Administration), vide order dated 14.12.2024 and he was permanently barred from University Campus, vide order dated 14.05.2026. Thus, he submits that such antisocial activities by petitioner’s son cannot be tolerated. He further submits that University has not passed any order against the petitioner and the impugned order, is passed by the outsourcing agency, and it is not a case of termination, but that of transfer, as petitioner has been transferred by the outsourcing agency from Pantnagar to Haridwar. 6. Having regard to the serious allegations against petitioner’s son, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. Even otherwise also, as outsourced employee, petitioner does not have any lien on any post in the University. 7. The writ petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 03.06.2026 Navin