IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 807 of 2008 (S/S) Smt. Damyanti Bisht W/o Sri Dalip Singh Bisht R/o Govindpuram, Kusumkhera Haldwani. . Petitioner ...………… [ Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Education Uttarakhand Shasan, Dehradun. 2. Director, Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 3. District Education Officer, Nainital. 4. Additional District Education Officer (Basic) Nainital. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned transfer order dated 25.07.2008 (copy of which is annexed as Annexure –15 to the writ petition) whereby the petitioner, an Assistant Teacher, has been transferred from Kotabagh to Mukteshwar in District Nainital. 3) Perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner has been transferred on the administrative ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to interim order dated 01.07.2008, passed by Division Bench of this Court, in Writ Petition No. 123 (S/B) of 2008, and argued that the transfer on administrative ground are punitive in nature. Said observation made in interim order cannot be said to be ratio decidendi. 4) In Prabir Banerjee Vs. Union of India and others, (2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 793; State of U.P. and another Vs. Siya Ram and another, (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 405; and Union of India and others Vs. Janardhan Debanath and another, (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 245, the Apex court has held that transfer order passed on administrative grounds cannot be said to be punitive and it should not be interfered by Courts unless malice is shown or the order is against any mandatory statutory rule. Since, the impugned transfer order neither suffers from malice nor is against the statutory rule, nor can be said to be arbitrary, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 5) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed summarily, for the reasons as above. (Stay Application No. 5065 of 2008 also stands dismissed) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) [ Dt. August 07, 2008. H.Negi