IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 186 OF 2011 (S/S) Ratan Prakash, S/o Sadanand, R/o 40, Lunia Mohalla, Block-1, Dehradun. …….Petitioner. Versus Chief General Manager, Telecom, Uttarakhand Circle, Dehradun & another. …..Respondents. Present: Mr. Ravi Babulkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Advocate holding brief of Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Assistant S.G. for the Union of India / respondents. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. Ravi Babulkar, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Advocate holding brief of Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India / respondents. The petitioner is a temporary employee in the Telecom Department known as “Temporary Status Mazdoor” (from hereinafter referred to as TSM). He has been transferred from “Vikas Nagar” to “Selaqui”, which is within district Dehradun. The petitioner has though taken recourse to a non-statutory scheme known as “Casual Labour (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme of the Department of Telecommunication, 1989” (from hereinafter referred to as “1989 Scheme”), according to which, a TSM can only be transferred within its recruiting unit. In the case of the petitioner, his recruiting unit is General Manager (Telecom), district Dehradun. Now with his transfer to “Selaqui”, he has in fact been transferred to another recruiting unit, which is within the Headquarter. The petitioner therefore alleges that there has been a violation of 1989 Scheme, and consequently his transfer order is bad, and is liable to be set aside. 2 Learned counsel representing the respondents states that the Scheme on which reliance is being placed by the petitioner is a non-statutory scheme, which is not mandatory but only directory in nature. Moreover, in a given contingency, the petitioner can always be adjusted to another recruiting unit. Merely because there is a minor violation of some scheme, which is a non-statutory in nature, interference from this Court will not be called for. Transfer being exigency of service, the Courts are slow in interfering in these matters, unless it is shown to the Court that there is violation of any statute or the order itself is without jurisdiction or it is with mala fide intention. None of these are alleged in the present writ petition. The instant writ petition is, therefore, devoid of merit and is dismissed as such. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 8.3.2011 Rathour