IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Stay Application No.3634 of 2009 In Writ Petition No. 438 of 2009 (S/S) Smt. Sakuntla Devi, W/o Sri Mahendra Kumar, R/o Village Banbasa (Canal), Presently working as Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School, Raikot Kunwar Tehsil- Lohaghat, District Champawat. ……Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand and two others. …….Respondents. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.C. Tiwari, Brief Holder for the respondents. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 20-03-2009 annexed as annexure No.10 to the writ petition whereby the representation of the petitioner was rejected. It was further prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a direction be given to the respondent to re-consider the case of the petitioner for transfer to some suitable place in Tanakpur. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had made a representation on 25-07-2008 mentioning therein that in the four schools at Pachpakariya, Uchauli Got, Phagpur, Tanakpur, District Champawat post of the Assistant Teachers are vacant. At present the petitioner is working as Assistant 2 Teacher in the Rajkiya Purva Madhyamik Vidhyalay, which is situated in the remote area (Durgam area). The grievance of the petitioner is that the representation of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that there is no vacancy in the institutions, which are situated in the Sugam area. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that one of the institution on which the petitioner was seeking her transfer in the Primary School Uchauli Got, which comes under the Durgam area. Moreover, the vacancies are in existence in the institution at Uchauligot and Pachpakhairya where the petitioner has sought transfer. The averments to this effect has been made in para No. 16 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner has also filed the copy of the order dated 02-03- 2009 whereby the adjustment of two teachers were made, subsequently, it was cancelled by the competent authority. The respondents have made an averment in para Nos. 9 and 14 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that there is no vacancy. I have perused the order-annexure No.11 of the writ petition whereby the adjustment, which was made at Uchauligot and Pachpakhairya was cancelled. The averments made in the counter affidavit do not appear to be correct. If there was no vacancy, the adjustment of the teachers could not be made on those places. Although, it was subsequently cancelled for the reasons best known to the respondents. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 20-03-2009 whereby the representation was rejected is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to re- 3 consider the representation of the petitioner, if there are vacancy exists in the institution mentioned in the representation of the petitioner in accordance with the transfer policy. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (B.S.Verma, J.) 28-07-2010 MK