IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Civil Writ Petition No. 858 of 2006 (S/S) 1. Munesh Kumar Tyagi S/o Sri Dayanand Tyagi Serving as Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari, Block –Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2. Shiv Kumar Gupta S/o Sri Nar Singh Das Block Narsan, District Haridwar. 3. Harpal Singh S/o Jaswant Singh Block Bahadrabad, District Haridwar. 4. Mohd. Mubeen Khan S/o Sri Nanhey Khan Block Roorkee, District Haridwar. ...................... Petitioners Versus 1. Commissioner, Rural Development, Uttaranchal, Pauri. 2. Deputy Commissioner (Administration) Rural Development, Pauri. 3. District Development Officer, Haridwar. ........................ Respondents Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the impugned transfer order dated 21.06.2006, whereby the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have been transferred from District Haridwar to District Tehri, petitioner No. 3 has been transferred from District Haridwar to District Chamoli and petitioner No. 4 has been transferred from District Haridwar to District Pauri. 3) The said order itself shows that the transfer of the petitioners has been made in the public interest. From the affidavits filed by the parties, it appears that the petitioners were posted in the District of Haridwar for last fifteen years. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court to Notification dated 30.06.1999, issued by Government of U.P., copy of which is Annexure –4 to the writ petition, and on its basis it is contended that power to transfer the petitioners vests in the Commissioner, and not in the respondent No. 2. However, Annexure C.A. 1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, shows that the powers are delegated to the authority concerned, as such, I see little force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners. 5) For the reasons as discussed above, this writ petition is dismissed in limine. Interim order dated 30.06.2006 stands hereby vacated. (Stay Vacation Application No. 12452 of 2006 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. : December 13,2006 H.Negi