The court emphasized that resistance to transfer based on a spouse's government job is not a valid reason under the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017.

JUDGMENT :

Vipin Sanghi, J.

Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken instructions to press the present Writ Petition.

2. The petitioner, who is serving as Senior Administrative Officer, Prantiya Khand, Dehradun, has been transferred to Prantiya Khand, Bageshwar to serve as Senior Administrative Officer, which is being challenged before us.

3. The glaring facts of the case are that the petitioner has continuously served in accessible areas for the past more than 30 years, i.e. from the time even before the creation of the State of Uttarakhand, on the ground that her husband is also a government servant, and is serving at Dehradun.

4. The aforesaid ground, for the petitioner not being transferred throughout her career, is not to be found in the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017. That cannot be a reason for not transferring a government servant for such long periods. The place of posting of the other spouse, who may be serving in a government department, is only one of the considerations, and that ground cannot be available throughout the career of the government servant, for not being transferred out like all other employees in the cadre. When the petitioner was sought to be transferred to Bageshwar, she resisted the same by approaching the Scheduled Caste Commission, Uttarakhand, which sought to pass orders, staying the same, even though the said Commission has no such authority in law to do so.

5. We caution the said Commission not to pass such interim orders, which it has no power to do. This order shall be communicated for information andcompliance by the Scheduled Caste Commission, Uttarakhand in future.

6. Mr. Bhatia submits that the transfer of the petitioner was wrongly nomenclatured as to Nirman Khand, Bageshwar, whereas there is no Nirman Khand in Bageshwar.

7. The documents produced by the respondents show that the said order had been amended on 16.03.2023 to read as “Prantiya Khand, Bageshwar”.

8. The aforesaid hyper-technical ground taken by the petitioner, therefore, does not survive. The documents produced by the respondents in Court show that, as early as on 14.02.2023, the petitioner was directed to join the post of Senior Administrative Officer at Prantiya Khand Bageshwar, which she refused to accept, as is clear from the endorsement made on 15.02.2023 in the register. It appears to us that the petitioner is hell bent on not leaving Dehradun, and joining the post, to which she stands transferred. Even till date, she had not reported at her present place of posting.

9. Mr. Bhatia submits that her transfer has been made on administrative grounds. He further submits that the case of the petitioner was not placed before the Transfer Committee for consideration of her transfer, as required under Section 17(2)(c) of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017. He submits that no enquiry has been conducted, by grant of any opportunity to the petitioner, on the alleged grounds of serious complaints of misconduct, misbehavior with senior officers and lack of interest in work, etc. Section 18, insofar as it is relevant, reads as follows :-