HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 208 of 2009 (S/S) Narendra Kumar …. Petitioner .. Versus State of Uttarakhand & another … Respondents Sri M.S. Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 20th October, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Restoration Application No. 775/2009 Delay Condonation Application No. 8870/2009 This writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 13.8.2009. Now a restoration application has been filed along with an application for condoning the delay in filing the writ petition. Reasons assigned for delay in filing the restoration application appear to be bona fide. Delay condonation application is allowed. Delay in filing the restoration application is condoned. The grounds stated in the accompanying affidavit to the restoration application appear to be bona fide. Restoration application is allowed. Order dated 13.8.2009 is recalled. Writ petition is restored to its original number. W.P. No. 208/2009 (S/S) Heard Sri M.S. Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher in “Uchh Prathmik Vidhyalay”, Prahladpur, Khanpur, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar. The petitioner is aggrieved as even after 16 years of service in “Durgam” area he has not been transferred to a 2 “Sugam” area. The petitioner alleges that this is in violation of the transfer policy laid down by the State of Uttarakhand inasmuch as an Assistant Teacher who has served 5 years or more than this period in a “Durgam” area has to be automatically transferred to a “Sugam” area. However, this has not been done in the case of the petitioner. The petitioner had also filed a representation to the education authority to this effect. Since this representation had not been disposed of, the petitioner had constrained to file a writ petition bearing no. 865 of 2008 (S/S). This writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this High Court by directing the concerned authority to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 06.08.2008. Now vide order dated 7.10.2008 the District Education Officer has disposed of the representation of the petitioner stating that the petitioner has not completed 5 years of service in a “Durgam” area. Moreover, though there are provisions where a handicapped Assistant Teacher can be transferred to a “Sugam” area but this could not be done in case of petitioner as the petitioner has not submitted the relevant certificate to this effect. Hence, the representation of the petitioner was also rejected. The petitioner, however, claims to be a handicap. The petitioner has now challenged this order and has prayed before this Court that he has put in more than 16 years in “Durgam” area. This averment has not been denied in the counter affidavit. State Counsel Sri N.P. Sah, however, states that no transfer can be made during mid-sessions and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Another fact which the petitioner has asserted is that the petitioner is 55 years of age and within 5 years will reach the age of superannuation and, therefore, for this reason he also wants to be transferred in a “Sugam” area. In case the petitioner has put in more than 5 years of service in “Durgam” area and considering that in such cases the Assistant Teachers are transferred to a “Sugam” area as 3 per the transfer policy, it would be a discrimination in case such a transfer is being denied to the petitioner, as it would be in violation of the transfer policy. It is true that the transfer policy on which the petitioner is relying upon has no statutory force yet it is a policy framed by the State Government and it is expected that the same will be adhered to in its letter and spirit and no discrimination shall be caused to the Government servants who are governed by such policy. Therefore, the Director, School Education/respondent no. 1 is hereby directed to consider all the relevant facts including the present transfer policy and in case the petitioner has put in more than 5 years of service in a “Durgam” area then his case for transfer to a “Sugam” area shall also be considered at the end of the academic session, when such transfers are normally made. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 20.10.2009 Avneet