IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 374 of 2011 Rajendra Kumar …….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ..…Respondents. Sri Udyog Shukla, Advocate present for the petitioner. Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (oral) Heard Sri Udyog Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner is a class IV employee in Technical Rural Engineering Service in the State of Uttarakhand. The appointment of the petitioner is on a district cadre post. These are all admitted facts. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.4.2011 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Nainital to Bageshwar. Vide order dated 2.5.2011, this Court had stayed the impugned order inasmuch as such transfer prima facie could not have been made as the appointment of the petitioner itself was a district cadre appointment and Bageshwar is a different district in the State of Uttarakhand. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that earlier there were 13 divisions in the State of Uttarakhand. Now these 13 divisions have been converted into 20 divisions and some new divisions have been carved out from the earlier divisions. Therefore restructuring of these divisions were made and in view of these compelling circumstances the petitioner was transferred from Nainital to Bageshwar. The principle adopted for transfer under these compelling circumstances, according to the respondent, was that the employees who had stayed longest in a district were to be transferred and since the petitioner had stayed longest he was transferred. 2 Evidently, the petitioner was not liable to be transferred outside Nainital, as his appointment was made for Nainital only. Assuming for the sake of argument that there were certain compelling circumstances for the State and in these new contingencies certain employees were liable to be transferred in newly structured department, it was necessary that before transferring such an employee an option was liable to be called from such employee and as far as possible only such employees were liable to be transferred who had given their option in favour of transfer. Even if such an option was called for, it is the case of the petitioner that he has clearly stated that he does not want to go to Bageshwar. In other words, the petitioner did not choose to go to Bageshwar. Moreover, adopting a policy where an employee who has stayed longest is to be chosen for transfer was itself wrong, as logically such employee who has already stayed longest in a district has a better right to remain at a place than those who have been newly inducted in service and they can only be transferred on their option or unless there is a scheme regarding such transfers. This not being the case transfer order dated 19.4.2011 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. This Court is not expressing any opinion on merits or demerits of any scheme which the State may bring into service in such a given contingencies where new divisions have been created and transfers are to be made for newly structured divisions. In the absence of such a scheme, such transfer is bad. However, the State is at liberty to frame a scheme which is just equitable and reasonable and thereafter transfer of such employees can be made. With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 21.6.2011 Avneet