IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 202 of 2010 Atul Semwal ……… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others .……. Respondents. Mr. G.S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Date of Judgment: 06.09.2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) On 26th October 2007, the petitioner was a Principal of a College. On that date, a transfer order was passed and thereby the petitioner was transferred to a post of Block Education Officer. According to the petitioner, the post of Block Education Officer is a higher post than that of a post of Principal of an Intermediate College. It is the further contention of the petitioner that only senior Principals are equivalent to Block Education Officers and, accordingly, only senior Principals become Block Education Officers. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is a junior Principal of an Intermediate College and on 26th October 2007, as a stopgap arrangement, he was asked to discharge the duties of Block Education Officer. The present writ petition is because the petitioner is aggrieved by the transfer order dated 6th August 2010, whereby and under, he has been transferred to a post of Block Education Officer at a different place. The contention of the petitioner is that since he is a junior Principal, he should not be asked to discharge the duties of Block Education Officer for a very long period of time. 2. In the event we interfere with the order dated 6th August 2010, whereby chain transfers have been effected, the same would result in retaining the petitioner as Block Education Officer at the place where he 2 is posted as such. The petitioner would not be reverted back to the post of Principal of an Intermediate College. 3. That being the situation and by the transfer order dated 6th August 2010, since the status bestowed upon the petitioner has not been altered, we feel, we have nothing to be done on the writ petition and, accordingly, dismiss the same. This order will not prevent the petitioner to make appropriate representation before the appropriate authority. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 06.09.2010 06.09.2010 Amit