UKHC010114092026 2026:UHC:5407 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Service Single No. 1686 of 2026 06 July, 2026 Kuldeep Kumar --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr. G.S. Negi, learned Additional C.S.C. with Mr. Hargovind Pant, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Petitioner has challenged the transfer order dated 29.06.2026 issued by respondent No.3, whereby, petitioner, who is a Marketing Inspector, was transferred from Roorkee to Vikasnagar. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was earlier posted in Heerahedi Roorkee, but vide subsequent order dated 10.12.2018 he was attached at Laksar; vide order dated 28.05.2025, he was transferred from Laksar to Roorkee. Now, by the impugned order, petitioner was transferred from Roorkee to Vikasnagar in public interest. Petitioner has challenged the impugned transfer order on various grounds. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has been transferred to Roorkee on 28.05.2025, and therefore, even within less than four years, he should not have been again transferred. Secondly, it has been argued by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner cannot be transferred in public interest from Roorkee to Vikasnagar and the transfer order has been passed after 10.06.2026. UKHC010114092026 2026:UHC:5407 2 4. Though, petitioner has taken various grounds for impugning the transfer order, but, this Court is of the view that transfer of a public servant can be made under exigency of service and it is incidental to service. Petitioner has got no indefeasible right to stay at a place for long on his own motion. Petitioner was earlier posted in Roorkee in the year 2018, wherefrom he was placed on attachment to Laksar and he wants to stay on the said place for so many years, which cannot be permitted. 5. In view of the above, invoking discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in- limine. 7. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 06.07.2026 PN PREETI NEGI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe383 31bac55c78b5f9f0276c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE 064498483A83D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2026.07.06 18:27:20 +05'30'