IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 283 of 2011 Rajeev Kumar Jaiswal. ………. Appellant Versus Director, Economic and Statistics Directorate & another. ..………. Respondents Mr. Lalit Sammant, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) In July, 2009, appellant was appointed as Assistant Development Officer (Statistics) in the Statistical Department of the State. The post of Assistant Development Officer (Statistics) in the said Department of the State is a State level post and, accordingly, an incumbent, holding such a post, is bound to be transferred from one place to the other. At the time of his appointment, appellant was posted at block Gairsain, district Chamoli. In 2011, he was transferred to Nainital. In the transfer order, it was held out that the said transfer is at the request of the appellant. Contending that no request was made by the appellant for his transfer, a writ petition was filed, which was disposed of with a direction upon the appellant to make a representation and upon casting a corresponding obligation to decide the said representation. Accordingly, a representation was made and the same was decided. In the representation, it was held out that no request for transfer was made by the appellant. The said fact has been acknowledged in the decision rendered on the representation. However, despite acknowledging the same, it has been held out that the appellant was transferred on administrative ground and, particularly, in order to enable him to gain knowledge in the work related to his field. By a subsequent writ petition, this decision was, once again, impugned. That writ petition has been dismissed and, accordingly, the present appeal has been filed. 2 2. Since it is not in dispute that a transfer before the normal period of three years may be effected on administrative ground, it was not contended that a transfer on such ground could not be effected. It was, however, contended that there was no just reason for effecting the transfer and, since the petitioner was transferred on a wrong notion that the petitioner has applied for such transfer, in order to perpetrate the same, it is now being held out that the petitioner has been transferred on administrative ground. There is some substance in the said contention. However, when it has been held out that the administrative ground for transferring the petitioner is to enable him to acquire greater knowledge, it will be appropriate on the part of the appellant to accept the transfer and it will be inappropriate on the part of the Court to interfere, inasmuch as, an employer has every right to train its employees for the purpose of enhancing the effectiveness of administration of the affairs of the employer. 3. We, accordingly, refuse to interfere. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.) 15.12.2011 15.12.2011 G