1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 927 of 2005 (S/S) Devendra Kumar S/o Sri Sukh Lal At present posted as Peon (Anusewak) In the office of Zila Panchyat, Rudrapur District- Udham Singh Nagar. ...........Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal through Secretary, Panchayati Raj Vibagh Dehradun, District- Dehradun. 2. Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchyat Rudrapur, District-Udham Singh Nagar. 3. Smt. Susheela Gangwar, Chairman Zila Panchayat, Rudrapur District- Udham Singh Nagar ...........Respondents. Shri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Alok Mehra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.06.2005 (Annexure –8 whereby the he has been attached to camp office of his department. 3. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioner is a Peon in the office of Zila Panchayat, Udham Singh Nagar. A camp office of Chairman, Zila Panchayat runs at the residential 2 accommodation of respondent No. 3. Vide impugned order dated 29.06.2005, the petitioner (a Peon) is attached from the Headquarter to the camp office. The said order has been challenged in this petition. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 and 3 in which it has been stated that the respondent No. 3 discharges her official functions at the camp office also and for the smooth functioning of said office, the attachment order was passed by said authority. Counter affidavit further reveals that after the impugned order was passed, the petitioner failed to comply with the direction of respondents No. 2 and 3. and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him and he was placed under suspension (that order is not impugned before this Court in this writ petition). It is further alleged in the counter affidavit that not only the petitioner violated the order but also misbehaved with the authorities. He made interpolations in the attendance register. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that a separate writ petition is pending against the suspension order passed against the petitioner. However, this Court is concerned about the legality of the impugned order- Annexure 8, which is simpliciter attachment order from Headoffice to the camp office. 6. This Court asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to show the right which was violated of the 3 petitioner in attaching him from Headoffice to the camp office, which he failed to point out. On behalf of the petitioner, neither any right nor any condition could be shown in the appointment letter that he was not liable to be attached to the camp office. This Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India, can interfere only if some legal right is violated of the petitioner, which he petitioner has failed to show. An order of attachment of Class IV employee from Headoffice to the camp office is an order in the exigency of the service whereby no right appears to have been violated. As such, this writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to the dismissed. 7. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. The interim order dated 20.07.2005, passed by this Court stands hereby vacated. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt: 22nd of April, 2006 Sweta