IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 222 of 2009 Sadhu Ram Saini …Appellant Versus Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal & another …Respondents Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. J.S. Khehar, C.J. (Oral) On 24.12.2009, this court passed the following order: “Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Learned counsel for the respondents having obtained instructions from the Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Haridwar, acknowledges that though the appellant has been relieved consequent on the passing of impugned order of transfer dated 03.11.2009, he has not yet assumed his duties at the transferred place of posting. Likewise, he states that the individual sought to be posted in place of the appellant, has not been relieved from his original station of posting, and, as such, there can be no question of his having assumed duties in place of the appellant. The instant factual information supplied to this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents, when read with the order passed by this Court in the instant Special Appeal on 08.12.2009, leads to the inference that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it may not have been necessary for the appellant to have impleaded Jeet Singh Rawat in Writ Petition No.1100(S/S) of 2009. Having crossed the first hurdle, learned counsel for the appellant states that the post held by the appellant, namely, Administrative Officer, Zila Panchayat, Haridwar, is a district cadre post, and that, the appellant could not have been transferred by the impugned order dated 03.11.2009, out of district Haridwar. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant could not be controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents, in fact, he 2 seeks an adjournment, so as to obtain instructions in the matter. In view of the factual position noted hereinabove, we are satisfied, that till appropriate instructions are obtained by the learned counsel for the respondents, operation of the impugned order of transfer dated 03.11.2009, should be stayed. Order accordingly. List again on 30.12.2009.” When the matter was taken up today, the sole issue under consideration was whether the post of Administrative Officer, Zila Panchayat, Haridwar, was a district cadre post. In fact, a perusal of the order passed on 24.12.2009 reveals that, this court was pleased to grant an injunction to the appellant on the basis of the said position, namely, that the post of Administrative Officer, Zila Panchayat, Haridwar, was a district cadre post. During the course of hearing today, learned counsel for the respondents could not controvert the aforestated factual/legal position. To be fare to the learned counsel for the respondents, during the course of the hearing today, he had placed reliance on Rule 132 of the Zila Panchayats Service Rules, 1978. However, when confronted by the learned counsel for the appellant, it was conceded that the aforesaid provision authorizing transfer had been struck down by the High Court at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4035 of 1979 (Zakir Ali and others versus State of U.P. and others), decided on 18.11.1979. It is also acknowledged that thereafter vide Government Order dated 18th September, 1987, the provision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, was actually repealed by the State Government. In view of the above, the factual/legal position, brought to our notice, by the learned counsel for the appellant, that, the post of Administrative Officer, Zila Panchayat, Haridwar, was a district cadre post and transfer of the incumbent thereof, could not be beyond the district, stands affirmed. In view of the above, the interim order passed by this court on 24.12.2009 is hereby confirmed. 3 For the reasons recorded above (which had weighed with us in confirming the interim order), the instant appeal is liable to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned transfer order dated 03.11.2009 is accordingly hereby set aside. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 30.12.2009 SP