IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 246 of 2010 Dr. Tasdeeq Khan ……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ………. Respondents Ms. Indu Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Jagdish S. Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel (Govt. of Uttarakhand) for the respondents. Date of Judgment: 10.11.2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) The petitioner contended that the concerned Minister has not approved the transfer order by which he has been transferred from Roorkee. 2. We asked the learned counsel for the State to take instructions. The learned counsel for the State has obtained instructions and has submitted that the transfer order was issued only after the concerned Minister had approved the same. That being the situation, the principal ground for challenge to the order of transfer fails. Appropriate records produced by the learned counsel for the State in support of the contention as above, is kept with the records. 3. The petitioner is contending that he has some disability which would prevent him from discharging his duties in hilly terrain of the State. As a doctor, we feel, the petitioner would be required to do the same work wherever he is posted. However, in the event disability of the petitioner is such that the same would become a life risk of the petitioner to serve in hilly terrain, it shall be open to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation afresh, and if such representation is made within a period of 15 days from today to respondent No. 1, the said respondent is requested to consider and decide the same within a period of 15 days from 2 the date of receipt thereof. While making the representation, let a copy of this order be enclosed therewith. 4. This disposes of the writ petition. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 10.11.2010 10.11.2010 Amit