IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1660 (S/S) of 2007 K.N. Bhatt S/o Late Hari Kishan Bhatt R/o Base Hospital Colony Srikot, Ganganali, Srinagar Garhwal. ……Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Uttarakhand Dehradun. 2. Director General, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Uttarakhand Dehradun. 3. Chief Medical Superintendent H.N.B. Base Hospital, Srinagar Garhwal. ……..Respondents. Shri Subhash Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner learned Standing Counsel. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of ciertiorari quashing the impugned transfer order dated 10.11.2007, passed by respondent No. 2, transferring the petitioner from Srinagar, Pauri, to Chamoli in the office of Chief Medical Officer. 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is an Electrician, posted in Base Hospital Srinagar, Pauri. It is stated in the writ petition that without any rhyme and reason petitioner has been transferred from Base Hospital, Srinagar Pauri to the office of Chief Medical Officer, Chamoli, in the mid session on 10.11.2007 particularly when his daughter’s marriage was to be solemnised on 25.11.2007. It is stated in the writ petition that there were no complaints against the work of the petitioner. Challenging the impugned transfer order, as illegal, the writ petition is filed by the petitioner. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents No. 2 and 3, it is stated that petitioner is transferred in pursuance to the Government Order No. 284, dated 14.09.2007, from Base Hospital, Pauri Garhwal to Chamoli. However, in the counter affidavit it is not denied if the petitioner’s work is satisfactory and if there were complaints from any corner of the office against him. It is also not denied that petitioner was transferred in the mid session when his daughter’s marriage was fixed for 25.11.2007. 4. The order No.284/izlfpf’k/2007, Dehradun, dated 14.09.2007, on the basis of which impugned transfer order appears to have been passed is annexed as C.A. 1 to the counter affidavit in which it is mentioned in the order, issued by the Government that as to the work of 12 employees whose name figure in said letter their work is to be reviewed and if necessary Medical Officer or Member of staff, who is working against the spirit of the Government, should have been transferred. 5. Annexure-2 to the writ petition is the statement reviewing the work of the petitioner-K.N. Bhatt, in pursuance to the aforesaid G.O. No. 284/izlfpf’k/2007, dated 14.09.2007, reads as under:- ^^mRrjk[k.M 'kklu fpfdRlk f'k{kk foHkkx ds 'kklukns'k la[;k 284@izlfpf'k@2007 nsgjknwu fnukad 14 flrEcj 2007 ds }kjk Hksth xbZ lwph ds vuqlkj csl fpfdRlky;] Jhuxj ds vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;kas ds lEcU/k esa fooj.k 1 Jh dq'kykuUn HkV~V in dk uke& bysfDVªf’k;u 2- LFkkbZ@LFkkuh; irk&LFkk;h irk LFkkuh; irk& xzke t[ksM+k iksLV nsgypkSjh] iV~Vh bMokyL;wW ikSM+h x<+oky LFkkuh; irk&VkbZi 2@4 csl fpfdRlky; ifjlj] JhdksV] Jhuxj x<+okyA 3- csl fpfdRlky; es rSukrh dh frfFk o dqy vof/k& 03-04-1989 ls dqy vof/k 18 o"kZ 06 ekg ds yxHkx 4- &vkdfLed vodk’k dh vof/k o"kZ 2007 esa 1-2-2007 ls 9-2-2007 rd o 5-5-2007 5- mikftZr vodk’k dh vof/k 19-11-91 ka 22-11-91 rd] 1992] 1993] 1994] 1995] 1996 esa 30&30 fnu dk uxnhdj.k vodk’k] 17-1-97 ls 31-1-97 rd 15 fnu dk mikftZr vodk’k ,y0Vh0lh0 gsrq 2-1-98 ls 30 fnu dk uxnhdj.k vodk’k 2-7-99 ls 30 fnu dk uxnhdj.k vodk’k] 1-3-2006 ls 15- 03-2006 rd mikftZr vodk’k 6- fpfdRlk vodk’k dh vof/k dksbZ ugh 7- fcuk csru dk vodk’k@ osru tks :dk gqvk gks& dksbZ ughaA 8- vukf/kÑr vodk’k& Ukgha 9- dgha vU;= dk;Z dj jgs gSa& ugha 10- dksbZ LFkkukUrj.k gqvk gks rks mldk fooj.k ugha 11- &deZpkfj;ksa ds }kjk dh xbZ f’kdk;r& ugha 12- turk dh dksbZ f’kdk;r ugha 13- fdlh dksVZ dsl esa lfEefyr &ugha ugha 14- Okkf"kZd xksiuh; izfrf"B& 2006&07 dh vadu ugha dh xbZ 'ks"k vof/k dh Bhd gSA ” The aforesaid review statement does not disclose anything adverse on review of work and conduct of the petitioner. It is not the case of the respondents that in the administrative exigency, the petitioner is transferred from Srinagar Pauri to Chamoli. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the entire papers on record, filed with the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, the impugned order being totally arbitrary, is liable to be quashed. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned transfer order dated 10.11.2007, is quashed with the observation that the respondents shall be at liberty to transfer the petitioner, in future in any administrative exigency or for any the administrative reason, if so, required or if he is liable to be transferred otherwise. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 03.03.2008 Sweta