IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 209 of 2010 Rajendra Singh Chauhan S/o Sri Heera Singh Chauhan, Presently serving as Assistant Director, Dairy Development Department, Haldwani, District Nainital. ………….. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Dairy Development Department, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 2. Director, Dairy Development, Uttarakhand, Haldwani District Nainital. 3. Sri Bhupendra Singh Bisht, serving as Assistant Director, Dairy Development Department, Almora. .…...……. Respondents Present: Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Alok Mahra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for respondent No.3. Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble V. K. Bist, Judge Date of Decision : 15.12.2010 Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) (Urgency Application No.4427 of 2010) This is an application for fixing an urgent date of hearing filed by respondent No.3. While considering the application, by consent of the parties, we took up the hearing of the writ petition on merit. (Writ Petition (S/B) No. 209 of 2010) By the order impugned, petitioner, who has been transferred to Haldwani, has also been asked to discharge the duties of the office of Assistant Director, Dairy Development Department Almora. The reason being, the private respondent, who has been transferred to Almora, is not interested to work at Almora. We felt 2 that a person cannot be asked to discharge duties of two offices, one at Haldwani and the other at Almora, which are 90 kms. apart, simultaneously and, accordingly, quashed the order and disposed of the writ petition. At that stage, the private respondent was not noticed. A part of the order also permitted the private respondent not to work at his transferred post at Almora. After the private respondent came to learn about the order passed by us, he filed a review petition and thereby contended that the order passed by us, while disposing of the writ petition, was passed without notice to him. We, accordingly, recalled our order but at the same time passed an interim order staying the operation of the order impugned. 2. Counter affidavits have since been filed, whereby and under, the private respondent has brought to our notice that each of the 13 districts of the State has got a post of Assistant Director, Dairy Development Department but there are only 8 officers in the cadre of Assistant Director, Dairy Development Department. It has been contended by the private respondent that in such view of the matter an Assistant Director, Dairy Development Department is always made In-charge of two districts. It has also been contended that the petitioner too was asked to discharge, on earlier occasions, duties of Assistant Director, Dairy Development Department of two districts, offices whereof were situated at a distance of about nearly 50 to 60 kms. It was contended that in such circumstances, it was unjust and improper on the part of the petitioner to approach this Court, when he was asked to discharge the duties at Haldwani and at Almora. In addition to that, it has been stated that the petitioner is at Haldwani since 18th July, 2009. It was also contended that the private respondent was transferred to Almora after he was permitted to remain at Haldwani for one year. It was contended that in such circumstances, this Court should not interfere with the order impugned. 3. Assistant Director, Dairy Development Department is an important post. The said post is attached with many a public duties 3 and responsibilities. If the offices of these two posts are situate, 90 kms. apart, it is not humanely possible for one person to discharge the duties attached to such posts. Public interest would not allow one person to discharge the duties of two of such posts when the seats of the posts are situated at a distance of 90 kms. In the event, there are only 8 officers, whereas the requirement is of 13, it is obligatory on the part of the State to induct 5 more as soon as possible and if necessary, by engaging officiating Assistant Directors but if the State ask one of such officers to discharge the duties of such of those two posts at 90 kms. apart, then the State, as it appears to us, is not concerned with public interest but is only concerned with showing on the records that the posts stand supplied. We deprecate such view on the part of the State. In the event, the petitioner had discharged duties of two such posts, seats whereof were situated 50/60 kms. apart, we are sure that the purpose of discharging duties attached to those posts failed for humanly it is not possible for one person to travel 100 kms. a day and that too in the hilly terrain of the State and to discharge public duties attached to two of those high public posts. When the petitioner discharged those duties, he was interested to do the same and, accordingly, did not protest and State Government agreed to the same, but when a question of compulsion comes, we think that the State is incompetent to compel a person to do what the State proposed that the petitioner should do, as was propounded in the order impugned. We, accordingly, set aside that part of the order, by which the petitioner was asked to discharge duties attached to the post of Assistant Director, Dairy Development Department, Almora. 4. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. ( V.K. Bist, J. ) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 15.12.2010 P. Singh