IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 910 OF 2009 (SS) Bhagwati Prasad Uniyal …..Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……….Respondents. Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand/respondents. 4th November, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate for petitioner and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand/respondents. Petitioner has filed present writ petition challenging his transfer order dated 31.07.2009 passed by the Director Panchayati Raj Uttarakhand, Dehradun, whereby he has been transferred from district Tehri Garhwal to District Uttarkashi. It is settled principle of law that the transfer is an exigency of service and normally interference in these matters are made by the Court on two grounds A) statutory violation or B) an apparent malafide. None of these grounds exists in the present writ petition. However, the petitioner has alleged that as per policy, options are invited from the incumbent to the place where he wants to be transferred. This has not been done in the present case. This itself is not a ground, on which this Court can interfere in the matter. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner, then stated that he has made a representation before the authorities, which is still pending though representations of similarly situated persons have been disposed of by the concerned authority. Therefore, the representation of the petitioner shall also be disposed of by the concerned authority expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks from the date such a representation is filed along with certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 4.11.2009 Rathour