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 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 Uttara