IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition No. 1098 (S/S) of 2006 Murari Lal Verma, Son of Sri Balkrishan Verma, Permanent resident of Village – Govardhan, Mathura (U.P.) At present posted as Cooperative Inspector, Grade – II, Hardwar. ……..Petitioner V e r s u s 1 . Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 2. State of Uttaranchal through Secretary, Cooperatives, Dehradun. ………..Respondents Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J. Heard Sri Vijay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for State of Uttaranchal on behalf of respondents. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:‐ I. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby calling to the records of the case and quashing the impugned transfer order dated 06.07.2006 passed by respondent no. 1 which is Annexure no. 1 to this writ petition. II. Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstance of the case. Petitioner, who is working as Cooperative Inspector Grade II, at Hardwar, is aggrieved by the transfer order dated 06.07.2006 passed by Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Uttaranchal, has preferred this writ petition. By the aforesaid transfer order petitioner has been transferred from Hardwar to Tehri on administrative ground. The transfer order has been challenged by the petitioner on three grounds. First, petitioner has been transferred on administrative ground, which cast stigma on the petitioner. It is a well settled law that any transfer order made on administrative ground cannot be treated as stigma in service of the employee. Second, transfer order has been passed against the guidelines dated 27.06.2006 issued by State of Uttaranchal. It is true that guidelines issued by State of Uttaranchal are made for implementation by the Officers of State Government. Since these are only guidelines and do not have statutory force transfer order cannot be challenged only on the ground that the transfer is passed in violation of transfer policy. Third, the submission of the petitioner is that petitioner has been isolated by transferring him to Tehri as other persons working as Cooperative Inspector at Hardwar are staying for period more than that of petitioner. Since the petitioner has been transferred on administrative ground. I do not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been isolated by not transferring those persons, who have long stay at Hardwar than the petitioner. In the last learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has already moved representation before respondent no. 1 on 22.07.2006, which is Annexure no. 4 to the writ petition. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that respondent no. 1 be directed to decide the aforesaid representation dated 22.07.2006 at the earliest. The prayer is innocuous. Accordingly, I direct the respondent no. 1 to take decision on the representation of the petitioner dated 22.07.2006 within a period of three week from the date of production of certified copy of this order. With this direction writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J) August 11, 2006 SKSharma