IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 171 (S/B) of 2006 Smt. Dr. Sunit Mishra aged about 40 years, W/o Dr. S.K. Mishra, R/o 3/4 Officers Colony, S.D.M. Compound Haldwani, District Nainital …………. Petitioner Versus Union of India through its Secretary, Personal Public Grievances & Pensions, Govt, of India, New Delhi and six others ……….. Respondents Counsel for petitioner: -Sri Ashish Joshi, Advocate Counsel for Respondents:- (1) Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate for Union of India (2) Ms. Beena Pandey, Advocate for State of U.P. (3) Sri K.P. Upadhyay, Advocate for State of Uttaranchal Dated: May 25, 2006 Coram: Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: - A. To issue writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.2.2006 passed by Respondent No. 5 (Annexure No. 1) to the writ petition. B. To issue writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 04.3.2006 passed by Respondent No.5 (Annexure No.2) to the writ petition. C. To issue writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.7.2005 with respect to the petitioner (Annexure No.11) to the writ petition. D. To issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to relieve the petitioner for State of U.P. in pursuance to the order dated 21.7.2005 and order dated 15.2.2005. E. To issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to place the service of the petitioner in State of Uttaranchal. F. Issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the judgments passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (S/B) No. 330 of 2005, Smt. Dr. Sunita Mishra Vs. Union of India and others decided on 15.12.2005 and the judgment and order dated 9.8.2005 passed in W.P. (S/B) No. 174 of 2005, Smt. Dr. Sunita Mishra Vs. Union of India and others. 3. Both the aforesaid judgments have been passed by this Court on the premises that the petitioner as well as Dr. Ashok Verma were seeking transfer from one State to another. Since Dr. Ashok Verma has not joined the State of Uttaranchal nor the petitioner has joined the State of U.P., therefore they could not seek the mutual transfer from one State to another. The Government Order dated 14.6.2005 referred in the judgment dated 9.8.2005 contained in Annexure No. 7 to the present writ petition does not speak about the stay in each State by mutual consent. The said G.O. dated 14.6.2005 does not warrant the allocation by the consent of the parties. It permits only the transfer by the mutual consent. There is a great difference between the transfer and the mutual allocation to remain in the each State. It is not the case of transfer by mutual consent. It is the stay in each State by mutual consent and if it is allowed that will be in violation of the order passed by the Government of India under Section 73(2) of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000. It is worth to notice that the petitioner never opted for the State of Uttaranchal. 4. Therefore, these Government Orders dated 14.6.2005 and 21.7.2005 cannot override the order issued under Section 73(2) of the aforesaid Act by the Government of India. Since the petitioner has been finally allocated to State of U.P. by Government of India, therefore we are not inclined to interfere with the relieving order of the petitioner for State of U.P. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in-limine. No order as to costs. (B.S. Verma, J.) (P.C. Verma, J.) Rajeev Dang