HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.922 (S/S) of 2009 Ram Avadh Chaska S/o Sri Sudai ……Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & ors. ……Respondents Dated :- 23rd September, 2009 Mr. Abdul Wahid, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State. Hon’ble J. C. S. Rawat, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 25-4-2009 and 7-9-2009 passed by respondent no.5 and 2 respectively. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to transferred the petitioner from the post of Lecturer in the College of Chopra (G.I.C. Chopra) District Rudra Prayag to any other College. (iii) Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of English Lecturer in Government Higher Secondary School, Chauria Bhardar (Tehri). On 13-8-2005 the petitioner was promoted from Govt. Higher Secondary School, Chauria Bhardar (Tehri) to G.I.C. Tilak Nagar. On 25-8-2005 the petitioner was again promoted and transferred to G.I.C. Chopra. In the same year 9 students of class XIth were failed in his subject. The students and their guardians exercised undue influence and pressurize on the petitioner to pass all the students but the petitioner refused to do so. The students and their guardians mishandled the petitioner and they took him in the office of the Principal, beaten him and snatched some money from him. Thereafter, the District Education Officer removed the petitioner from the post of Lecturer and attached him to his office. On 7-9-2009 the Additional Director of Education Garhwal Mandal, Pauri passed an order by which the petitioner was directed to join his duty in the remote area of the district where the post of English Lecturer was lying vacant. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned transfer order, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the transfer order on the ground that the students and their guardians exercise undue influence upon the petitioner and pressurized him to pass the students who had failed. The petitioner was manhandled by the students and guardians and they take him in the office of the Principal and beaten him and snatched some money. The second ground on which the petitioner has challenged the attachment order to the office of D.E.O. as well as the subsequent order passed by the Additional Director of Education to post the petitioner to some other school is illegal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The transfer order can only be interfered by the Court if it is made against the violation of the statutory rules or has been actuated by the malice. In this case the directions which have been contained in both the letters are not in violation of the any statutory rules. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that these orders have been passed against the statutory rules. Whereas the malice is concerned the petitioner has not alleged any substantial ground for malice in passing the said order by the Additional Director of Education or by the District Education Officer. At the most it has been stated in para 7 of the writ petition that the malice is against the parents of the students. The details of the said malice has not been set forth because the name of the students and the guardians of the students who have manhandled the petitioner have not been given in the petition. Apart from that there is no malice against the Additional Director of Education and District Education officer who has passed the attachment order. It is also alleged that no FIR was lodged by the petitioner against the students and their parents. 7. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the view that no interference by this Court is required under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this matter. The petition is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. (J. C. S. Rawat, J.) Dated 23.09.2009 Bhaskar