UKHC010106252026 2026:UHC:5017 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Service Single No.1611 of 2026 17th June, 2026 Santosh Kumar Pandey ………….Petitioner Versus HOFF Uttarakhand and others …………..Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Jai Krishna Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Koranga, learned B.H. for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the transfer order dated 04.06.2026, annexure no.4 to the writ petition, passed by respondent no.2-Conservator of Forest, Western Circle, Haldwani, Uttarakhand, whereby the petitioner was transferred from Tarai Purvi Van Prabhag, Haldwani to Haldwani Van Prabhag, Haldwani. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that decision of the Department to transfer the petitioner and relieve him immediately is arbitrary and unjust. It is contended that the respondents have acted mechanically without considering the petitioner's unblemished service record and have completely ignored the fact that he was posted back to his home station only in March, 2026. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned transfer order has been passed strictly in accordance with law as part of the routine annual transfer exercise. It is submitted that the petitioner has remained posted in the same Division for more than seventeen continuous years and, therefore, had become due for transfer under the applicable transfer policy. He further submits that temporary internal assignments or office arrangements, such 1 UKHC010106252026 2026:UHC:5017 as the petitioner's deployment in the Master Control Room for a short period, do not interrupt his tenure in the Division nor curtail the Department's authority to effect transfers in the interest of administration and public service. 4. This Court has considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. It is well settled that transfer is an incident of service. A government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place or to continue on a specific post. The scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters relating to transfer is extremely limited and interference is warranted only where the transfer order is shown to be mala fide, passed by an incompetent authority, or in violation of any statutory provision. 5. In the present case, the material available on record clearly demonstrates that the petitioner has remained posted within the same Division for more than seventeen years. A short-term internal assignment or localized administrative arrangement within the Division cannot be treated as a fresh posting. The Department is fully competent to transfer its employees in accordance with administrative exigencies and public interest. 6. This Court does not find any illegality, arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of any statutory rule in the impugned transfer order warranting interference in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed in limine. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 17.06.2026 SK 2