HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (S/S) No. 990 of 2021

Parvinder Kumar

…........ Petitioner

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others

…..... Respondents

Present : Mr. Tanuj Semwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Anjali Bhargawa, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

(i)

Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to

call for the record and quash the impugned order dated

11/10/2019 and order dated 22/07/2021 passed by the

respondent No 5 and 4 (contained in Annexure No 7 and

10 of the writ petition).

(ii)

Issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of Mandamus

directing and commending the respondents not to transfer

the petitioner from the Government higher Secondary

School Inayatpur (Bhagwanpur) Hariwar to Government

Inter collage Kathur, Hindoe (Bhilangna) Tehri Garhwal.

(iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or directions which this

hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in fats and

circumstances.

(iv)

To award cost of the present writ petition to the petitioner.

2.

Petitioner is serving as Assistant Teacher in the

Government Higher Secondary School Inayatpur (Bhagwanpur),

Haridwar. It is the case of the petitioner that on 26.05.2019, a

complaint was filed against another teacher of the school namely

2

Mohar Singh by some of the parents relating to beating and torture of

the students. A police case was also lodged against Mohar Singh under

Section 323, 506 IPC. A departmental inquiry was also conducted

against him. He was served charge-sheet and the Inquiry Officer finally

recommended transfer of the Principal of the school and many other

teachers, including the petitioner.

3.

It is the case of the petitioner that there was no allegations

against him; he was never served any charge-sheet; no departmental

inquiry was conducted against him and he has been transferred without

any reason.

4.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner had already worked in Ati Durgam Area for 10 years. Since,

2016 he has been working in the present school. With regard to beating

of the students, the department conducted an inquiry against a teacher

Mohar Singh. There was no inquiry against the petitioner, he was never

heard before the transfer order was passed. Therefore, the impugned

order deserves to be set aside. In the alternate he also argued that

petitioner may be given an opportunity by the department to explain his

conduct. Based on his explanation, the department may then take any

action, as permissible under law.

6.

Learned State counsel would submit that, in fact,

petitioner had already submitted his representation to the Regional

Additional Director, Madhyamik Shiksha, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri

(Annexure No.7 to the writ petition).

7.

Transfer is always done in the exigencies of public

interest. Unless statutes provides for it, nobody can claim that he

should not be transferred. It is not punishment as such. The transfer

order which is impugned is neither stigmatic nor punitive. The Inquiry

Officer has concluded that there are groups in the school which vitiates

academic atmosphere of the school. The Inquiry Officer has not

3

recommended

the

transfer

of

the

petitioner

alone,

instead

recommendation has also been made to transfer the Principal and other

teachers of the school. It is not even argued or alleged that there has

been any malafide on the part of the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner has

not been singled out.

8.

It is settled law that the Court should be much slow in the

matter of transfers. Of course, as stated, if there are some statutory

restrictions on the transfer that may be a consideration before the