IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.115 of 2008 (S/B) Ravindra Kumar Rajwar … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & two others … Respondents Sri Sudhanshu Dhulia, Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri D.S. Patni, for the petitioner Sri Subhash Upadhyaya, brief holder for State/Respondents Dated: September 9, 2008 Coram Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. (Oral) The short ground on which the impugned transfer order has been assailed is that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1987 to District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Uttarkashi. According to the petitioner, his appointment was valid only for that particular District. He was not liable to be transferred to any other District. Vide the impugned transfer order dated 13.6.2008, the petitioner has been transferred from Hardwar to Bageshwar. The impugned order has been issued by the Commissioner, Rural Development, even though signed by the Additional Commissioner. 2. However, the circumstances under which the writ petitioner had to go from Uttarkashi (place of original appointment) to Hardwar, have been explained in the counter affidavit. In the year 1995, the petitioner was transferred from Uttarkashi to Hardwar at his own request. If the petitioner obtained a transfer at his own request and in fact was sent to Hardwar from Uttarkashi, the argument that petitioner was only to serve in Uttarkashi loses its force. Secondly, our attention has been drawn to communication dated 17.03.1994 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that such posts in DRDA whereupon State Government or the Commissioner has to make appointments, incumbents of these posts are liable to serve anywhere in the State. It is based on this government order that the petitioner was transferred from Hardwar to Bageshwar. 3. No interference is called for. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) (V.K.Gupta, C.J.) 09.09.2008 Rdang