IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.418 of 2009 (S/S) Neeraj Kumar Srivastava …Petitioner Versus United India Insurance Company & others ....Respondents Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Alok Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Mamta Joshi, Advocate for the respondents. Dated: 18.06.2009 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.04.2009 by which the petitioner was asked to hand over charge to one Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, A.M. D.O. Haridwar and report to the Office-in- Charge of Regional Office Ludhiana. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is working as Divisional Manager of United Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Haridwar. Respondent nos.1 and 2 conducted an examination on 19.10.2008 for promotion of officers from Scale-III to Scale-IV. The petitioner appeared in written test on 19.10.2008. According to the petitioner when he appeared in promotional written test on 19.10.2008, invigilator by mistake took away question cum answer books and loose answer sheet alongwith call letters of the petitioner with her and after few minutes she returned a bunch of papers to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner left the examination hall. After sometime when he reached Railway Station, he received a phone call by which he was informed that due to mistake of invigilator computer answer sheet went with him alongwith bunch of papers which was returned to him by the invigilator. After receiving telephone call the petitioner immediately rushed back to examination centre and returned the computer answer sheet with a note that same went out with him by mistake and he had no intention to cheat. On this the authority gave his remark on the answer sheet “retreat”. On 10.11.2008 the result was declared but the name of the petitioner was not shown in the promotion list. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application through proper channel to Deputy General Manager (Promoting Department) on 12.11.2008 asking him to provide the marks obtained by him. The petitioner also sent several reminders but no reply was given to him. The petitioner also moved an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 but when no satisfactory reply was received he filed a writ petition no.148 of 2009 for declaration of result. The respondents for harassing the petitioner further issued an order by which petitioner has been transferred to Ludhiana as Deputy Manager. Again on 23.04.2009 an order has been passed for the relieving of petitioner. 3. Aggrieved by the said transfer order, present writ petition has been filed. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been transferred because the authorities were annoyed with him as petitioner vide letter dated 06.03.2009 demanded copies of compromise note in two motor accident claims in which claims were compromised for Rs.3,05,500/- and Rs.3,21,500/- whereas claimants had claimed Rs.40,000/- and Rs.45,000/- only for their claims. Another argument of the petitioner’s counsel is that due to filing of writ petition no.148 (S/S) of 2009 the respondents got annoyed with the petitioner and passed impugned transfer order. The respondents filed their counter affidavit stating therein that the petitioner has not disclosed any cogent reason to challenge the transfer order and ambiguous, vague and bald allegations are not sufficient to maintain the writ petition against his transfer order. It is further submitted in counter affidavit that petitioner has also not alleged any malice on the part of any officer of the company-respondents to get petitioner transferred nor any such officer is named or impleaded in the writ petition. Shri Alok Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents argued that the order challenged by the petitioner is passed on the basis of order passed by Head Office on 06.04.2009 by which the petitioner was transferred to Ludhiana but he has not challenged that order and has challenged the order dated 23.04.2009 by which he has been asked to hand over charge. 4. This Court finds force in the argument of Shri Alok Singh, Senior Advocate. Relief prayed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 23.04.2009 by which he was asked to hand over charge to another person cannot be granted to him as he has not challenged the transfer order dated 06.04.2009 on which basis relieving order was passed. 5. The writ petition filed by the petitioner only against the reliving order is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. 6. No order as to costs. (V.K.Bist, J.) 18.06.2009 Arti