IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1024 OF 2009 (SS) Sunita Rana …………Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others. ………..Respondents. Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. With WRIT PETITION NO. 985 OF 2009 (SS) Smt. Pushpa Nath ………..Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……….Respondents. Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. With WRIT PETITION NO. 971 OF 2009 (SS) Smt. Sarojini Parmar …………….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …………..Respondents. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. With WRIT PETITION NO. 1013 OF 2009 (SS) Smt. Vimla Panwar ………………Petitioner. Versus Block Education Officer (Chamba), Tehri Garhwal and others. ……………………Respondents. Mr. M.S. Chauhan, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. 2 With WRIT PETITION NO. 972 OF 2009 (SS) Anand Singh Negi ………….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ………..Respondents. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. With WRIT PETITION NO. 973 OF 2009 (SS) Smt. Savitri Nautiyal ………………….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …………..Respondents. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. With WRIT PETITION NO. 974 OF 2009 (SS) Smt. Vimla Ramola ………………..Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……………Respondents. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. 29th October, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Mangal Singh Chauhan and Mr. Rajeev Singh, Bisht, learned counsels for the petitioners and Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. All these writ petitions pertain to transfer of Assistant Teachers from one School to another. Since the 3 subject matter of these writ petitions is the same and the grounds for challenge of the impugned order are broadly common, all these writ petitions are being decided by this common order. The State was earlier given three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit, but the same has not been filed as yet. Although the counter affidavit has not been filed as yet, the Standing Counsel Mr. N.P. Sah has stated that there is no anomaly in the impugned transfer orders and they are perfectly in accordance with the transfer policy. Moreover, the transfer is an exigency of service and normally the grounds of challenge which may be avoidable to petitioners in a matter of transfer, which are statutory violation and malafide, do not exist in the present writ petitions. He further states that in matters of transfers, the law is well settled, the writ petitions are without merit and are liable to be dismissed. The main ground for challenge in all the aforesaid writ petitions is that the transfer of the petitioners (who are Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools) is firstly during “mid session” and there are government orders to this effect passed by the Secretary as well as the Director of School Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun stating that mid-term transfer should not be made. These impugned transfer orders are in violation of the these Government Orders. Both the parties present here state that these Writ Petitions be disposed of at the admission stage itself. The main concern of this Court is regarding the fact that the transfer orders have been passed during mid- term, however, there may be a justification on the part of the State in making such transfer orders. All the same, the categorical stand of the State is not before this Court 4 in form of a counter affidavit. At the same time, this Court feels that matter such as these should not remain pending for long. As such these petitions are being disposed of with the following directions: All the petitioners shall file their individual representations before the Director of School Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun and the Director after giving each of the petitioner an opportunity of hearing shall dispose of the representation with a speaking order. However, till such representations are not decided, the petitioners shall not be relieved from the present place of posting. It is clarified that the Director of School Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun need not pass any elaborate order, but reasons nevertheless must be assigned for passing the orders. Such a representation as referred above shall be filed by the petitioners before the Director of Education within a period of one week from today and the same shall be disposed of by the Director of School Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun within a period of three weeks, from the date he receives a certified copy of this order and the representations. With the above observations, writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. Let the copy of the order be issued today itself. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 29.10.2009 Rathour