IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. (SS) 987 of 2011 Kishan Singh Rawat …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ….Respondents Present : Mr. B. S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H. M. Raturi, Learned Standing Counsel for the State. Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. B. S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. H. M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner is an Assistant Tourist Officer in the department of tourism. The petitioner has been transferred from Pauri to Pithoragarh. The petitioner alleges that there has been a frequent transfer in his case. This aspect though may not be correct inasmuch as the petitioner is working in New Tehri since 2006 and for a very short while he was asked to take additional charge at Pauri and thereafter he returned to New Tehari. Therefore the allegation that he has been frequently transferred may not be correct. The other contention of the petitioner is that he is suffering from various ailments and is presently under going the treatment in Doon Hospital and he states that he will not be able to get the proper treatment in case he is transferred to Pithoragarh. Be that as it may, transfer is an exigency of service. The grounds for interference by this Court are only limited. The Court normally would not interfere in the transfer order unless it suffers from mala fide or it has been passed without jurisdiction or in violation of law. 2 This not being the case at present, no interference is called for by this Court. However, considering the fact that as the petitioner is suffering from various ailments and is being given treatment at Dehradun, this can be a ground for consideration by the appropriate authority which in the present case Director Tourism Uttarakhand Dehradun respondent no.2. The petitioner in order to show his bona fide first must give his joining at Pithoragarh as directed by his superior authorities and after he gives such a joining, in case he moves a representation before the Director Tourism Uttarakhand Dehradun/respondent no.2. The same shall be considered sympathetically and in case the petitioner is actually suffering from various ailments, as he stated in the writ petition and under going treatment at Dehradun as it is alleged, it is hoped and expected that Director Tourism Uttarakhand Dehradun respondent no.2. shall make efforts to adjust/transfer the petitioner to a nearby place. With the above observations, he writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 03.08.2011 Kuldeep