IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 253 of 2010 Smt. Laxmi Tamta ….…… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………. Respondents Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel (State of Uttarakhand) for the respondents. Date of Judgment: 02.12.2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) By the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing. 2. Petitioner was posted at Ramnagar (District: Nainital) in March, 2004. By the order dated 5th July 2010, she was transferred to Chaukhutia (District: Almora). On 25th October 2010, petitioner was relieved. It is the contention of the petitioner that her daughter is pursuing M.A. and her son is in High School. It is being contended that the transfer was effected mid-session. It is being contended that there was no just reason for effecting a July transfer order at the fag end of October. It is being contended that the order relieving her, pursuant to the order of transfer, will affect the studies of her children. It is the contention of the State that petitioner was in-charge of recruitment process of Anganwadi workers at Ramnagar and, accordingly, until completion of such recruitment process, she could not be relieved. It has been contended that no sooner the recruitment process stood completed in the month of October 2010, petitioner was relieved. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was bounded duty of the State to ensure that by reason of a transfer effected mid-session, the children of the petitioner do not suffer. 2 3. We have considered the matter and are of the view that if the transfer was effected in July 2010, petitioner could not shift her children and, accordingly, delay in effecting the transfer for a good reason, as indicated above, cannot be a cause for restraining the transfer, in as much petitioner is not contending that the transfer itself was not permissible. That being the situation, we are not in a position to do anything on the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 02.12.2010 02.12.2010 Amit