IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 927 OF 2010 (S/S) Mukesh Kumar …….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ……….Respondents. Present: Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.(Oral) Heard Sri Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner as well as Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner is an Instructor in an Industrial Training Institute (from hereinafter referred to as I.T.I.). He has now been transferred from I.T.I., Dehradun to I.T.I., Thailisain, District Pauri Garhwal. This transfer is presently under challenge before this Court. The principal contention of the petitioner is that this has been done in violation of the transfer policy which stipulates that while making transfers, such persons who have stayed for the longest period at one place will be transferred first. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that he has stayed in Dehradun for the last 19 years. He contends that there are others in Dehradun who have stayed in Dehradun for a longer period than the present petitioner. Be that as it may, this Court does not find that it is a case where any interference can be made by this Court. The transfer orders can normally be interfered with on two grounds, A) if there is statutory violation or the order being without jurisdiction or B) in case the order has been passed with malafide intentions. None of 2 the said grounds have been alleged in the writ petition. The transfer policy (violation of which is challenged), is only directory and not mandatory in nature. As such, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 03.05.2011 Avneet