IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Writ Petition No.138/2010(S/S) Sundaru Bharti ………… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others………… Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri S. K. Mandal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Subhash Upadhyay, the learned brief holder for the State. The petitioner has been transferred by an order dated 6th February, 2010. The grounds urged for staying the transfer order is that under the policy of the Government, a person could not be transferred before three years. Secondly, the present transfer is a mid term transfer, which could only be done in case of administrative necessities and not as a matter of general rule. The third ground urged is, that the petitioner has, in fact, been demoted. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order. Admittedly, the petitioner is on a transferable post and can be transferred at any moment of time on account of exigency of work and in the public interest. It is not necessary that a person can be transferred only when normal transfer orders are issued at the beginning of the season and even in the public interest, a person can be transferred during the mid session. The court finds that the petitioner had worked at the present place of posting for 2 ½ years and consequently, can be transferred. There is no hard and fast rule that the petitioner can only be transferred only after completing a term of three years. The Government policy is not a statutory rule, which needs to be enforced in the strict sense. In view of the aforesaid, the court does not find any illegality in the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated: 9.3.2010 Nishant