Rajendra Chand Rajwar v. State of Uttarakhand and others

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed on the post of Laskar on 27.11.1997 in the National Cadet Corps. In the year 2010, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk and is posted at Nainital. In the year 2011, he was transferred from Nainital to Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar on mutual consent basis. This year, eligibility list for compulsory transfer was to be made from accessible area to remote area, in which, the petitioner is at Serial No.25. The petitioner has already spent 05 years and 03 days in the remote area, but there are many candidates in the list, who have not spent even a single day in the remote area. They have been given benefit and excluded 2 for being transfer this year. Once transfers were made, the petitioner did file a writ petition bearing WPSS No.1296 of 2025, Rajendra Chand Rajwar vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (“the first petition”), which was decided with the directions to the respondents to decide the representation given by the petitioner. By the impugned order dated 08.08.2025, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has no issue with the transfer in any place. But, there is some discrimination, which is being made with some employees; there are candidates at Serial Nos.27, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 of the list of the persons eligible for compulsory transfers, who have not served even a single day in the remote areas, whereas the petitioner has already served 05 years and 03 months. He would submit that these employees after promotions were not sent to the remote areas, whereas they ought to have been sent under Section 19 of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017 (“the Act”). He would submit that although Section 19 of the Act, give a transition period which has been extended to the 2026 now. But, these persons cannot get benefit to avoid their posting in the remote areas.

5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the transfers have been made in accordance with the rules. He submits that in accordance with Section 17 of the Act, the list of employees has been prepared in the descending order as per their length of service rendered in accessible area and in that list the petitioner has placed at Serial No.25. The other employees, who are at Serial 3 Nos.27, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 are also due for transfers, but they have spent less period in the accessible areas, therefore, they are appearing lower in the list of compulsory transfer. It is submitted that Section 19 of the Act has no application at this stage; whatever exemption an employee is entitled under Section 19 of the Act, may not be denied to him. It is submitted that the respondents have not considered the candidates at Serial Nos.27, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 to the list of compulsory transfers, for their transfers for the reason that in a year, a particular number of the employees are to be transferred. If these employees are not transferred this year, next year they may be at the top of the list for the employees of ‘eligible employees’ for compulsory transfer. It does not discrimination to the petitioner.

6. When the first petition was taken up for hearing on

06.08.2025, this Court has observed, “The Court wanted to know from learned counsel for the petitioner as to why this Court should interfere in a transfer order, which has been passed on 10.06.2025; why the writ petition should be entertained after such a long lapse?” On that date, thereafter, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the petitioner has already given a representation to the respondents. Therefore, the respondents may be directed to consider the representation. It is, therefore, the respondents were directed to consider the representation given by the petitioner. The representation has now been rejected.

7. For compulsory transfer from accessible area to remote area, a list is to be prepared according to Section 17 of the Act. It is prepared in descending order beginning from the employees 4 spending longest time in the accessible area during the whole service period and, thereafter the transfers are effected. The petitioner is in the list for compulsory transfer. He appears at Serial No.25, as he has spent 22 years, 06 months and 1 day in the accessible area. Accordingly, he has been transferred. Merely because there are some persons in the list, who have not spent any time in the accessible area, does not give a cause to the petitioner to challenge the transfer list. The petitioner has been transferred in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Moreover, the transfer order was passed on 10.06.2025 and for the first time, it was challenged in the first petition on 06.08.2025. It is much delayed also. The challenge to transfer at such a belated stage is also not permissible. Even it has not been shown that the transfer of the petitioner has been made in violation of any provisions of the Act. Accordingly, there is no reason to interfere in the instant petition and the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

8. The petition is dismissed, in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J.)

18.08.2025 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd504686df4d1afc60 f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC450A84B515 A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA