IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 534 of 2010 (S/S) Ranjan Kumar Joshi. …… Petitioner. Versus Govind Ballabh Pant Agriculture and Technology University Pantnagar and another. … Respondents. Mr. Bhupender Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Gopal Dutt Josohi, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents. Date July 15, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of transfer of the petitioners dated 24-6-2010 issued by the Finance Controller/respondent no. 2 (Annexure No.1 to the petition), whereby the petitioner has been transferred to Audhyanik Mahavidyalaya Bharsar in public/work interest. The petitioner is Junior Accounts Clerk under the employment of the respondent-University. The writ petition has been filed on the ground that the transfer of the petitioner was made because the petitioner filed a complaint against the University authorities including the Finance Controller of the University before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar on 19-6-2010. The Chief Judicial Magistrate called for the comments from the police station Pantnagar. It is also stated in the writ petition that the complaint was dismissed on 1-7-2010 for want of prosecution. The petitioner again filed fresh complaint on 3-7-2010, which is pending. 2 On the basis of instructions, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents informed the Court that the police made enquiry on the basis of complaint dated 19-6-2010 and submitted the report to the Court. The complaint has been filed by the petitioner being prejudiced. The police found no substance in the complaint. A perusal of the transfer order (Annexure-1 to the petition) shows that petitioner has been transferred to Industrial College Bharsar (Pauri Garhwal), which also falls under the control of the respondents. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that except the petitioner, other employees have been transferred within the same campus on other post. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Madan Singh Bisht Vs. District Magistrate Almora [2010 (1) U.D., Page 661], wherein it has been held that transfer order can be passed on account of exigency of service but when employee is transferred on administrative ground, there must be some complaint against the employee or there is charge of misbehaviour against him. In the instant petition, it is clear that the transfer order of the petitioner has been passed in public interest, as has been mentioned in the impugned transfer order itself. Transfer order has not been passed on administrative ground therefore the judgment relied upon by the petitioner is of no avail. There is no merit in this writ petition. The same deserves to be dismissed outright at the threshold. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP