IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/S) No. 1387 of 2011 Rajkumar Saini ………….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……...Respondents. Present : Mr. G.S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, Advocate for respondent no. 3. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. G.S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, Advocate for respondent no. 3. 2. The petitioner and respondent no. 3 are both Headmasters in a Junior High School. Whereas the petitioner was earlier posted in a relatively remote area, respondent no. 3 was posted in a relatively comfortable area. These two categories are defined by the State Government as “Durgam” and “Sugam” areas respectively. The petitioner gave a proposal to respondent no. 3 that they may seek mutual transfer and change place of posting. Consequently, they moved an application and vide order dated 21.5.2011 the petitioner was transferred in place of respondent no. 3 and vice versa. Respondent no. 3 consequently joined on the new place of posting which was on a remote area and also drew salary from the said school. Thereafter after summer vacations, respondent no. 3 moved an 2 application to the respondent education authorities and pleaded that the consent for mutual transfer has been obtained from him at a time when he was not in a proper mental state. In order to strengthen his argument, respondent no. 3 has also annexed certain certificate of doctor where he underwent treatment for head injury. Consequent to the said application, the concerned department had passed the order dated 3.10.2011 by which the earlier order for mutual transfer dated 21.5.2011 was cancelled. It is this order which the present petitioner has challenged before this Court. 3. Although the State Government has not filed its counter affidavit as yet, the private respondent has filed its counter affidavit. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 has placed the transfer policy before this Court dated 5.6.2008. The veracity of the said transfer policy is admitted by the petitioner as well as by the State Counsel. The same is taken on record. There is a condition for mutual transfer given in paragraph 3 of the said transfer policy dated 5.6.2008 which prohibits the transfer between two persons where one is working in a “Durgam” area and another is working in a “Sugam” area. Therefore, admittedly the earlier mutual transfer between the petitioner and respondent no. 3 was in violation of the policy. Though this contention of the respondents that he was not in a proper mental state and hence gave his consent cannot be accepted by this Court, as there is no reliable evidence before this Court and so far as this stand is concerned, the same is rejected. All the same, this Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the mutual transfer of the petitioner and respondent no. 3 was done in violation of the policy, and since the 3 mutual transfer was in violation of the policy, the concerned authority has now corrected the mistake and recalled the order dated 21.5.2011 vide its order dated 3.10.2011, which has presently being challenged. 4. There is another aspect of the matter that the respondent no. 3 will reach the age of superannuation on 30.6.2012. Therefore, he has less than one years of service left before his retirement. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as there is no ground for interference with the impugned order dated 3.10.2011 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition). 5. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 13.10.2011 stands vacated. 6. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 11.11.2011 Avneet