IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 353 of 2011 (S/B) K usum Sharma ...…………. Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ...…………. Respondents Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Central Government Counsel for respondent No 5. JUDGMENT Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C. J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (Oral) Petitioner, an employee of the State of Uttar Pradesh, of her own volition opted for the hill sub- cadre. Therefore, of her own volition, petitioner came in the hill sub-cadre. She was not forced to come to the hill sub-cadre. Members of the hill sub-cadre were under an obligation to serve only on the hills of the State of Uttar Pradesh. A person once opted to join the hill sub-cadre, in terms of the hill sub-cadre Rules, could under no circumstances go back to the general cadre. Knowing fully well, therefore, that once a person comes to the hill sub-cadre will remain confined 2 to the hilly parts of the State of Uttar Pradesh and will never be posted out of the hilly parts of the State of Uttar Pradesh, the petitioner in exercise of her own volition, became a member of the hill sub-cadre. Subsequent to exercise of such option of the petitioner, the State of Uttar Pradesh was bifurcated, when principally the hilly parts of the State of Uttar Pradesh alongwith some parts of the plane land of the State of Uttar Pradesh became the State of Uttarakhand. Having regard to the solemn undertaking given to serve the people of the hills at the time of opting for the hill sub- cadre, the Central Government in exercise of its powers to allocate the employees of the State of Uttar Pradesh, has allocated the petitioner to the State of Uttarakhand, in order to enable the petitioner to fulfill her solemn resolution to serve the people of the hills of the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh. That having been done, the petitioner wants to go back to the State of Uttar Pradesh on the plea that her husband is working at Kanpur, where the children of the petitioner are also residing. Long time before, at least before giving the option for the hill sub-cadre, the petitioner should have thought about her husband, his location as well as the location of her children. Notice of the petitioner was drawn to the judgment of the Division Bench of this court, whereby and under it declared that mutual agreement to obtain transfer is not within the purview of the Act authorizing Central Government to allocate provisional employees 3 of the State of Uttar Pradesh to either of the States created by and under the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has considered the said judgment. The learned counsel has not made submission to the contrary what has been stated in the said judgment. We, accordingly, hold nothing further can be done in the writ petition. The same is dismissed. [ (U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 07.12.2011 Negi