HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL (Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting) (Chapter VIII Rule 32 (2)(b) Description of the case. W.P. 1289 of 2003 (SS) Devendra Kumar Punetha vs. State of Uttaranchal Approved for reporting. _______________________ Not approved for reporting Date of decision. 24.10.2003 Initial of Judge HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition No. 1289 of 2003 (SS) Devendra Kumar Punetha s/o Sri Punetha s/o sri Banshidhar Punetha, Assistant Teacher Agar Soun, District Pithoragarh .……….… Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal through the District Basic Sikasha Adhikari, Pithoragarh, District Pithoragarh 2. Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Block Munakot, District Pithoragarh …….……. Respondents Sri K.N. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner Sri H.M. Raturi, Advocate for the respondents. Dated: 24th October 2003 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ order of direction in the nature of certiorari quash the order dated 2.8.2003. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner is permanently posted as Assistant Teacher in Primary School Aagarsaun, District Pithoragarh. The Assistant Basic Shiskha Adhikari, Munakote, District Pithoragarh the petitioner was given the additional charge of Primary School, Quarban which is about 50 kms. far from Aagar Soun. The Assistant Basic Shiskha Adhikari Munakote, Pithoragarh by order dated 2.8.2003 again transferred the petitioner from Primary School Aagar Soun to Primary School Quarban. The petitioner has made a representation to the Assistant Basic Shiskha Adhikari, Pithoragarh which was received by the Coordinator Block Munakote on 6.8.2003. The petitioner, therefore, prays that since he was posted in the Primary School, Aagarsaun, by order dated 3rd July 2002, therefore, subsequent order dated 2.8.2003 passed by the respondents transferring the petitioner to the original place of Quarban is illegal and cannot be sustained. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondents, I am of the opinion that since the petitioner has been directed to take charge of his original post he should have no grievance and the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the case of Shilpi Bose and others Vs. State of Bihar and others AIR 1991 SC 532, has held that the Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right at one place or the other. It has been further held that the transfer order issued by the Competent Authority do not violate any of his legal rights. The observations of the Apex Court are quoted below:- “In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from the one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the courts continue to interfere with day to day transfer orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration, which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders.” The petitioner has also stated that the transfer order has been passed in a mala fide manner. He has stated in his writ petition as under: 9. That the Mas transfer was made for the primary school teachers in the months of June, the teachers of Primary school Quarban has also transfer the complaint was made against the Mas transfer and inquiry was made against the Mas Transfer and inquiry was also made by the Joint Director of Kumaon Mandal, Naintal, the general transfer order was found illegal, and all the transfer was cancelled by the order dated 21.7.2003 in compliance of the letter dated 21.7.2003, the District Basis Shiksha Adhikari, Pithoragarh issued on letter to all the Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Pithoragarh on 23.7.2003. A copy of the letter dated 23.7.2003 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.5 to this writ petition. 11. That the village education committee passed an resolution on 9.89.2003, and requested to the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Pithoragarh the petitioner is working sincerely in the Primary School, Agar Soun, after he has transferred from Primary School Agar Soun, the said school will be closed no any other teacher is available on the said primary school. A copy of the resolution dated 9.9.2003, is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.6 to this writ petition. 12. That the Block Development Committee made also a question of transfer of the school the teacher was also raised the Chief Development Officer, Pithoragarh directed the Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikar the transfer of one teacher from Primary Scholl Bheta to Quarban where 4 teachers are working against 26 students. The said report was also published in daily news paper on 22.9.2003. 13. That the petitioner has transferred from Quarban to Aagar Soun on 3.7.2002, and he has joined the Primary School Agar sound on 5.7.2003, and after one year without any reason thesaid Basic Shiksha Adhikari passed an transfer order from Agar Soun to Quarban. 16. That in the primary school Agar Soun the petitioner is only one teacher, and there is no any other teacher to relieve him. The petitioner has stated that he has already filed a representation. Respondent no.2 is, therefore, directed to decide the representation of the petitioner after hearing the petitioner and after considering the Government rules and regulations within three weeks after filing the certified copy of the order. Till then implementation of the order dated 2.8.2003 shall remain in abeyance if the order has not been implemented. With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 24.10.2003 (Rajesh Tandon, J.) Dhyani