IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1217 of 2004 (S/S) Bashudha Pal W/o Ompal Singh ..……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents With Writ Petition No. 1216 of 2004 (S/S) Nand Ram Singh S/o Sri Chet Ram Singh and others ..……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents With Writ Petition No. 1306 of 2004 (S/S) Mohd. Yusuf S/o Sri Abdul Hamid ..……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents With Writ Petition No. 1420 of 2004 (S/S) Jitendra Pratap Singh S/o Sri Ram Chandra Verms ..……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents With Writ Petition No. 1253 of 2004 (S/S) Pradeep Kumar Pandey S/o Sri Basant Ballabh Pandey and another ..……… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri Rakesh Thapliyal & Shri K.N. Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Brief Holder for the respondents. In WPSS Nos.1217 of 2004, 1216 of 2004, 1306 of 2004 and 1420 of 2004, the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions 2 were transferred by an order dated 18th September, 2004 from district Pauri Garhwal to District Udham Singh Nagar, pursuant to which, the petitioners were relieved and last pay certificate was also issued. Based on the said transfer order, the petitioners reported at the place of transfer but were not allowed to join. Consequently, the aforesaid four writ petitions were filed seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 4, namely, the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Udham Singh Nagar to permit the petitioners to join as Assistant teachers in Udham Singh Nagar in compliance of the transfer order dated 18th September, 2004. An interim order dated 28/10/2004 was passed directing the authority to permit the petitioners to join their duties without further delay. Based on the aforesaid interim order, the petitioners joined and they are working as Assistant Teachers. An intervention application has been filed by one Pradeep Kumar Pandey alleging therein that the transfer order will jeopardize the prospects of the intervener for promotion in the next higher grade, since the said petitioners would be treated as senior to the intervener. In this regard, Pradeep Kumar Pandey has also filed WPSS No.1253 of 2004 questioning the transfer order dated 18th September, 2004. The State Government has filed a counter affidavit belying the stand of the intervener Pradeep Kumar Pandey and submitted that the petitioners in WPSS Nos. 1217 of 2004, 1216 of 2004, 1306 of 2004 and 1420 of 2004 would be placed at the bottom of the seniority list as per Rule 21 of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 and, therefore, the contention of the intervener Pradeep Kumar Pandey is not correct. Shri Rakesh Thapliyal, the learned counsel for the intervener who is also the petitioner in WPSS No.1253 of 2004 submitted that the petitioners of WPSS Nos. 1217 of 2004, 1216 of 2004, 1306 of 2004 and 1420 of 2004 have been promoted and, thereafter transferred 3 which could not be done. The submission of Shri Rakesh Thapliyal, the learned counsel for the intervener is patently misconceived. The promotion of the writ petitioners in WPSS Nos. 1217 of 2004, 1216 of 2004, 1306 of 2004 and 1420 of 2004 is not an issue to be decided in the writ petitions pending before this Court. Even the intervener who has filed WPSS No.1253 of 2004 has not questioned the promotional order of the writ petitioners in WPSS Nos. 1217 of 2004, 1216 of 2004, 1306 of 2004 and 1420 of 2004. Consequently, the grievance of the intervener that the transfer order is illegal and that these persons would be placed on top of the seniority list becomes redundant in view of Rule 22 of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. In the light of the aforesaid, WPSS Nos. 1217 of 2004, 1216 of 2004, 1306 of 2004 and 1420 of 2004 are disposed of in terms of the interim order granted by this Court. WPSS No. 1253 of 2004, Pradeep Kumar Pandey and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others does not hold any merit and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 11.03.2010 Shiv