##PAGE1##

2025:UHC:11428

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 224 of 2025

Suresh Ram … Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Others … Respondents

With

Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 1220 of 2024

Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 1193 of 2024

Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 1197 of 2024

Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 1207 of 2024

Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 1217 of 2024

Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 1225 of 2024

Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 1231 of 2024

Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 1252 of 2024

Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 1273 of 2024

Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 1275 of 2024

Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 1277 of 2024

Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 1364 of 2024

Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 1366 of 2024

Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 1373 of 2024

Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 226 of 2025

Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 227 of 2025

Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 231 of 2025

Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 254 of 2025

Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 255 of 2025

Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 256 of 2025

Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 261 of 2025

Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 263 of 2025

Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 264 of 2025

Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 267 of 2025

Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 268 of 2025

Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 269 of 2025

Mr. Vinay Kumar, Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Mr. R.C. Tamta, Mr. Shubhang

Dobhal, Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Mr. Digvijay Singh Bisht and Ms. Anannya

Jain (proxy counsel for Mr. Sandeep Kothari), Counsel for the

petitioners.

Mr. Narayan Datt, Standing Counsel, for the State.

J U D G M E N T

Hon’ble Manoj Kum ar Tiw ari, J.

Since common questions of fact and law are

involved in these petitions, therefore, they are clubbed

together and are being heard & decided by a common

1

2025:UHC:11428

judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of

Writ Petition (S/S) No. 224 of 2025 alone are being

considered and discussed.

2. Petitioners were appointed as Village

Panchayat Development Officer in Panchayati Raj

Department. Village Panchayat Development Officer is

a district cadre post, appointing authority whereof is

District Panchayati Raj Officer and they are not

transferable outside the district in which they are

appointed. Petitioners were transferred, on their

request, from one district to another by separate

orders, passed by Secretary, Panchayati Raj in the

month of November, 2023. Transfer orders passed by

Secretary, Panchayati Raj were cancelled by Director,

Panchayati Raj by a common order dated 3.7.2024.

Petitioners challenged the cancellation orders by filing

writ petitions. The main ground of challenge was that

since the order of transfer was passed by Secretary,

therefore, Director, Panchayati Raj, who is subordinate

to Secretary cannot cancel the order passed by his

superior authority. Interim orders were passed in the

writ petitions filed by petitioners challenging Director’s

order and on the strength of those interim orders,

petitioners continued to serve at the places where they

were transferred. During pendency of the writ petition,

Secretary, Panchayati Raj passed another order on

21.2.2025, whereby the earlier orders of transfer,

passed in November 2023, were cancelled. Petitioners

thereafter filed another set of writ petitions challenging

the order passed by the Secretary on 21.2.2025.

2

2025:UHC:11428

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contend

that the order passed by Secretary on 21.2.2025 is in

teeth of the interim orders passed in favour of

petitioners in the earlier round of litigation. It is further

contended that the Secretary, while cancelling earlier

transfer orders, has not applied his mind

independently, as he has relied solely on the opinion of

the Director, Panchayati Raj and facts and

circumstances of each case are also not considered. It

is further contended that the Secretary has relied upon

certain provisions of The Uttarakhand Annual Transfer

For Public Servants Act, 2017 including Section

17(2)(e) and Section 27, which however are not

attracted in the present case. Petitioners contend that

since it is not a case of annual or routine transfer and

petitioners were transferred outside their cadre,

therefore, provisions of The Uttarakhand