HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.854 (S/S) of 2009 Hari Singh Negi S/o Sri Jaman Singh ………Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……Respondents Dated :- 19th August, 2009 Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Brief Holder for the State/respondents. Hon’ble J. C. S. Rawat, J. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the following prayers:- (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned transfer order dated 31.07.2009 issued by respondent no.2 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) in so far as it relates to the petitioner. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent no.2 from transferring the persons serving as Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari in Gram Panchayat. (iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the fact and circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the costs of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner. 2. The impugned transfer order has been challenged on the grounds that (i) on 30.06.1999 the State of U.P. has issued a notification under section 25(1)(a) of the U.P. Panchayati Raj Act empowering the District Magistrates and the Commissioner for posting of employees transferred to Gram Panchayats within the limits of their respective jurisdiction. The said notification has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The said notification dated 30.06.1999 issued under section 25(1)(a) of the Panchayati Raj Act still applicable in the State of Uttarakhand after its creation and it has not been modified or cancelled. The impugned transfer order has been made by the Director, Panchayati Raj which is in utter violence of the statutory notification issued by the erstwhile State of U.P. on 30.06.1999. (ii) By virtue of said notification, the petitioner could not have been transferred in inter-Commissionery of the State; their services could have been transferred within the jurisdiction of the Commissionerry. 3. Learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand refuted the contention and submitted that after creation of the State of Uttarakhand the Governor of the State of Uttarakhand in exercise of the power conferred under Section 25(6) of the U.P. Panchayati Raj Act has issued a notification dated 16.08.2003 to the effect that the power of transfers is vested with the Director of Panchayati Raj and the District Magistrates. The Notification dated 16.08.2003 is quoted below:- “mRrj izns’k iapk;rjkt vfa/kfu;e 1947¼mRrjkapy esa ;Fkk izo`Rr½ dh /kkjk 26 dh mi/kkjk ¼8½ ds v/khu 'kfDr dk iz;ksx djds Jh jkT;iky lHkh ftyk eftLVªsVksa rFkk funs’kd] iapk;rhjkt] mRrjkapy dh /kkjk 26¼1½ ¼d½ ds vUrxZr xzke iapkerksa esa inLFkkfir deZpkfj;ksa ds ;Fkkvko’;drk LFkkukUrj.k gsrw viuh&viuh vf/kdfjrk lhek ds vUnj l?k"kZ “fofgr izf/kdkjh” vf/klwfpr djrs gS k” 4. Learned Brief Holder for the State further contended that the said notification issued by the State of Uttarakhand specifically provides for the transfer of employees by the Director of Panchayati Raj; whereas Section 25(1)(a) of the Panchayati Raj Act provides that if the Government appoint an employee in the Commissionery or in the District it is be posted by the Commissioner or by the District Magistrates in their respective areas. The notification contemplates the inter-commissionery transfer also. It was further contended on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand that the State Government has the power to transfer the employees, including the petitioner, working in the Gram Panchayats from one place to another. 5. After creation of the State of Uttarakhand, the Government has issued the said notification dated 16.08.2003, perusal of which clearly reveals that the Director of Panchayati Raj has been empowered by the Principal Secretary, Forest and the Rural Department on behalf of the State Government for posting of employees within the limits of his jurisdiction. The said notification further provides that the District Magistrates within the limits of their respective jurisdiction have power to transfer to the employees. 6. It was pointed out by learned senior Advocate for the petitioner that the notification dated 30.06.1999 issued by the State of U.P. has not been superseded by the notification dated 16.08.2003 issued by the State of Uttarakhand; the notification dated 16.08.2003 has been issued under section 25(6) of the Act; and it has not been issued under section 25(1)(a) of the Act. Perusal of the notification dated 16.08.2003 clearly reveals that it was issued under section 25(6) of the Act and it empowers the Director of Panchayati Raj under under section 25(1)(a) of the Act to transfer the empoyees. It is true that there is no averment in the notification issued by the Uttarakhand that the Notification dated 30.06.1999 issued by the State of U.P. has been superseded by the notification issued by the State of Uttarakhand, but it is a well settled that if a subsequent notification is issued empowering certain authorities the earlier notification to that extent stand non-existent and as such the notification issued by the State of U.P. would not have any affect in the State of Uttarakhand. Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the transfer order passed by the Director clearly indicates that the transfer has been made within the respective division of the State, as such, the Notification issued by the State of U.P. should have been taken into consideration while issuing the transfer orders. Learned Brief Holder for the State refuted the contention and contended that the Commissioner has the jurisdiction over the division and the Commissioners had the jurisdiction in their respective areas. Section 25(1)(a) of the Panchayati Raj Act provides that when a person is appointed within the division of the Commissioner he can be posted or transferred within the division. The State Government has issued the notification by which the Director has been conferred powers to transfer the employees in the entire State, as such, the power which has been conferred upon the Director relates to the transfer of employees from one place to another. I am completely in agreement with the contention made by learned Brief Holder for the State. 8. In view of above, I am of the view that the petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The petition is dismissed accordingly. (J. C. S. Rawat, J.) Dated 19.08.2009 LSR