IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1255 of 2011 Smt. Indu Chand ….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents. Present : Mr. Tanuj Semwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. Tanuj Semwal, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner has been transferred vide order dated 9.9.2011 from Munakote, Pithoragarh to Gangolihat, Pithoragarh as Child Development Project Officer. The petitioner has been working as Child Development Project Officer at Munakote, Pithoragarh since last more than 8 years. The contention of the petitioner is that impugned order shows that she has been transferred in order to accommodate Smt. Hemlata Dhoni who has been transferred on her personal request. This Court though is not inclined to interfere in the present case, inter alia, in view of the fact that Smt. Hemlata Dhoni has not been made a party in the present proceedings. The other ground alleged by the petitioner by referring the order dated 4.6.2011 wherein petitioner has annexed a list which is of such persons (all those employees in the department) who have been working there for last more than 13 years. The petitioner contends that she has been transferred although she has done only eight years of service whereas as per the transfer policy such persons who have done for last more than 10 years of service are liable to be transferred in public interest. The writ petition is being disposed of with a direction that petitioner may move a representation before the concerned authority after joining at new place of posting as per terms of the order dated 9.9.2011. In case such a representation is 2 moved before the concerned authority, the same shall be decided in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible but definitely within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the concerned authority where the concerned authority shall decide the representation of the petitioner. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 19.9.2011 kuldeep