The court upheld the authority's discretion in transferring public servants based on organizational needs and directed compliance with the transfer order.

Headnote:
Transfer - Public Servants - The court rejected the challenge to the transfer of the petitioner, emphasizing the organization's need to avail the petitioner's services at another location and deprecating the practice of obtaining recommendation letters to avoid transfer.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged a transfer order to Construction Division, Public Works Department, Guptkashi, after serving at the same posting since 2018.
Finding of the Court:

The court rejected the challenge to the transfer and directed the petitioner to join the transferred post within three days, with a warning of disciplinary action if not complied with.
Issues: Challenge to transfer order, non-joining of transferred post, and options for posting in durgam areas.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the organization's need for the petitioner's services at another location and directed the petitioner to join the transferred post within three days.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the direction for the petitioner to join the transferred post and be granted options for posting in durgam areas within one month.

JUDGMENT

Vipin Sanghi, CJ. - The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the order dated 22.11.2022, passed by respondent no.2, whereby the petitioner, who was posted as an Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil), National Highways Division, Haldwani, has been transferred to Construction Division, Public Works Department, Guptkashi.

2. The petitioner, admittedly, has rendered service in durgam area only for a period of about five years between 2013 to 2018. Thereafter, he was remained at Haldwani for over four years now. The challenge to the transfer has been made firstly, on the ground that the higher authorities have expressed the requirement of the petitioner at Haldwani in view of the ongoing projects.

3. We do not find merit in this submission. If the not for the officer, who is under transfer, to assess his need to serve at a particular place. Despite the recommendation to retain the petitioner, who has been serving at the same posting since 2018, he has been transferred, obviously, keeping in mind the need to avail of the petitioner's services within the organization at another location. We deprecate this practice of the officers under transfer obtaining recommendation letters, so as to avoid his/ her transfer. We, therefore, reject this ground to challenge the impugned transfer.

4. The further submission of the petitioner is that options were not called from him before transferring him to durgam area in terms of Section 9 of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer of Public Servants Act, 2017.

5. The petitioner has approached this Court to assail the transfer made on 22.11.2022, i.e. nearly one and a half months later. He has not joined the transferred post. We make it clear that his not joining at the transferred post was at his own peril. Merely because the petitioner claims that his representation is pending, is no ground to not to abide by the transfer order. In case the petitioner does not join at the transferred post within three days from today, it shall be open to the respondents to take appropriate disciplinary action against the petitioner.

6. After the joining of the petitioner at the transferred post, he be granted options in respect to other durgam areas where he could be posted within one month.

7. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document