HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition No. 1160 (S/S) 2006 Sarfaraj Ali S/o Sri Mohd. Ali, Junior Account Clerk, Akeshwar Block, District Pauri Garhwal. -- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Uttaranchal through Principal Secretary, Rural Development, Dehradun, 2. District Development Officer, Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal. --Respondents. Sri L.K. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondents. Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J. Heard Sri L. K. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondents. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned transfer order dated 10.07.2006 passed by the respondent no. 2 (annexure no. 1 to the writ petition), ii. Issue any writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper, iii. The cost of the petition may be awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner, who is working as Junior Account Clerk in the office of respondent no. 2 is aggrieved against the order dated 10.07.2006, annexure no. 1 to the writ petition, passed by the District Development Officer, Pauri, by which the petitioner has been transferred from Akeshwar Block to Bironkhal Block in public interest. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Appointing Authority of the petitioner is the 2 Commissioner of the Division whereas the transfer order has been passed by the District Development Officer, Pauri. Since the transfer order has been passed by the officer who is not competent to do so, therefore the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner because the District Development Officer is fully empowered to make transfers of the employees of the Department within the district concerned. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the petitioner may be permitted to move representation before respondent no. 2 and the respondent no. 2 may be directed to take decision on his representation within the period prescribed by the Court. The prayer is innocuous. Consequently, I direct the petitioner to move representation raising all his grievances within a period of 10 days from today before respondent no. 2 against the impugned transfer order dated 10.07.2006 and the respondents after receiving the representation, if any, shall take decision on the same within a period of two weeks from the dated of receipt a certified copy of this order. The stay application no. 10903/06 stands disposed of. With these directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) August 25, 2006: NCM: