JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, 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 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.

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 Annual Transfer For Public Servants Act, 2017 have no application to the case, thus, reliance on Section 17(2)(e) and Section 27 of the Act for supporting the cancellation orders, is misplaced.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that Village Panchayat Development Officers are member of district cadre post and their services are not transferable outside the district. He submits that persons, who were appointed in hill districts, were desperately seeking transfer to plain districts and because of repeated representations made by such persons, State Government had to issue instructions on 10.5.2023 asking the district level authorities not to forward request for change of cadre/transfer outside the cadre, unless the case is covered by proviso to Section 17(2)(e) of The Uttarakhand Annual Transfer For Public Servants Act, 2017. He submits that Section 17(2)(e) of the Act permits cadre change/out of cadre transfer of an employee only in case of marriage between two employees or displacement of employee due to acquisition of properties for development projects/natural calamity. Learned State Counsel thus submits that since petitioners’ case was not covered by proviso to Section 17(2)(e) of The Uttarakhand Annual Transfer For Public Servants Act, therefore, the orders of transfer passed in their favour by the then Secretary were legally unsustainable, therefore the competent autho