2026:UHC:57 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/1091/2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Anil K. Bisht, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. G.P. Awasthi, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 4. 3. Mr. Navnish Negi, Advocate for respondent no. 5. 4. Petitioner is serving as Administrative Officer in the Office of Deputy Education Officer, Bahadrabad, Haridwar. He was transferred to the office of District Education Officer (Secondary), Pauri, vide order dated 14.6.2024. 5. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the said transfer order. The ground taken is that although petitioner initially expressed willingness for mutual transfer with Mr. Rajesh Kukreti, however, he subsequently withdrew his consent on 10.5.2024, yet he was transferred on mutual ground. 6. Mr. Navnish Negi, learned counsel appearing for Mr. Rajesh Kukreti (respondent no. 5), however, disputes the said submission made on behalf of petitioner and submits that petitioner expressed willingness for mutual transfer and based on the consent given by petitioner, he was transferred from Haridwar to Pauri and Mr. Kukreti was transferred from Pauri to Bahadrbad, 2026:UHC:57 Haridwar; Mr. Kukreti joined duties at Haridwar on 25.6.2024 and he is presently serving at Haridwar, as the coordinate Bench had directed the parties to maintain status quo. 7. This writ petition was filed in 2024 and because of the order of status quo, a stalemate is continuing, inasmuch as petitioner is also serving at Bahadrabad in District Haridwar; while, respondent no. 5 has also joined at Haridwar, after being relieved from Pauri and he is also serving at Haridwar. No useful purpose would be served by keeping this writ petition pending. Law is well settled that judicial interference with transfer orders should be minimal, as it affects the efficiency of administration. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make representation before the Additional Director (Elementary Education). If he makes representation within ten days from today, decision thereupon shall be taken within four weeks thereafter. For a period of six weeks or till decision is taken, whichever is earlier, status quo as on today, qua posting of petitioner and respondent no. 5 shall be maintained. However, if petitioner fails to make representation, then he shall not be entitled to any protection of this order. The respondent no. 5 shall also be heard by the Additional Director, before taking any decision on the representation. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 02.01.2026 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da 82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643A F56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2026.01.03 16:36:24 +05'30'