IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/S) NO. 416 of 2011 Anil Kumar Singh ……Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……Respondents. Present: Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.(Oral) Heard Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner is working as a Junior Engineer in Rural Engineering Services in the State of Uttarakhand. He is aggrieved by order dated 5th July, 2010 passed by Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Service, Pauri Circle, Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal, by which he has been transferred from Haridwar Division to Pauri Division. The petitioner has raised three legal infirmities in the transfer order dated 5th July, 2010. Firstly that it is in violation of the settled transfer policy, secondly respondent no. 3, who is Superintending Engineer has malafide against the petitioner and thirdly, the order has been passed without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Superintending Engineer, Pauri Division has no power to pass such an order. 2 Earlier in the administration division of Pauri Garhwal, there was only one Circle in Public Works Department called “Pauri Circle”. Now it has been divided into two, namely, “Pauri Circle” and “Dehradun Circle”. Now Haridwar Division comes in Dehradun Circle. Therefore, the inter State transfer, if any, can only be made by Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Service Department, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun and not by the Superintending Engineer, Pauri Division. All these arguments of the petitioner, however, have no merit. First of all, it is an admitted case of the petitioner that as of now the petitioner has stayed in Haridwar for more than five years. In normal circumstances, a person can only stay in a particular place for three years. Therefore, the petitioner has already overstayed in District Haridwar. Though the transfer policy on which reliance is being made by the petitioner states that the person who has stayed for longest period be transferred first, but the same is only directory and not mandatory in nature and has no statutory force. Secondly, as far as malafide is concerned, this is only a bald allegation of arbitrariness which has not been substantiated by any evidence. Thirdly, the point of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner is also misconceived inasmuch as on 5.7.2010 when the impugned transfer order was passed, the entire administrative division of Pauri Garhwal was one circle and the Superintending Engineer, Pauri Circle had jurisdiction to transfer the petitioner from Haridwar to Pauri. It is only recently when it has been split into two circles as noted above i.e. after the impugned transfer order dated 5.7.2010 therefore, it cannot be said that the order dated 5.7.2010 is without jurisdiction. 3 It is a settled principle of law that the transfer orders can normally be interfered with on two grounds, A) if there is statutory violation or the order being without jurisdiction or B) in case the order has been passed with malafide intentions. Evidently none of these grounds exist in the present impugned order and, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court. The writ petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 11.5.2011 Rathour