WPSB/263/2023 of JAGDISH SINGH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 29 December 2023

|**SL.**<br>**No**|**Date**|**Office Notes,**<br>**reports, orders**<br>**or proceedings**<br>**or directions and**<br>**Registrar’s order**<br>**with Signatures**||**COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS**| |---|---|---|---|---| |||||WPSB No.263 of 2023<br>**Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, A.C.J.**<br>**Hon’ble Viv ek Bh ar t i Sh ar m a, J.**<br>Mrs. Snigdha Tiwari and Mr. Abhijay Negi,<br>Advocates for the petitioner.<br>Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy Advocate General<br>for the State of Uttarakhand.<br>2.<br>Petitioner is serving as Livestock Extension<br>Officer in Veterinary Department of the State.<br>In this writ petition, he has challenged the order<br>dated 10.06.2023, whereby respondent no.3<br>was transferred on request from Srikot, Pauri to<br>Maldevta in District Dehradun.<br>3.<br>From perusal of the record, it is revealed<br>that petitioner was transferred on his request to<br>Dehradun in 2022, therefore, his request for<br>retransfer to a place of his choice was not<br>considered while transferring respondent no. 3.<br>Respondent 3 had served for 15 years in<br>inaccessible places, therefore, his request for<br>transfer<br>found<br>favour<br>with<br>the<br>Competent<br>Authority and accordingly, he was transferred<br>vide order dated 10.06.2023.<br>4.<br>Transfer is an incidence of service and<br>judicial<br>interference<br>in<br>the<br>discretion<br>of<br>Transferring Authority has to be minimal. It is<br>not the case of petitioner that any Statutory<br>provision has been violated while transferring<br>respondent no. 3 and there is no vested right<br>available to petitioner to get transfer to a place<br>of his choice, therefore, this Court does not find<br>any reason to interfere with the impugned order.<br>5.<br>Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is<br>dismissed.<br>**( Vivek Bhar t i Shar m a, J.) ( Man oj Kum ar Tiw ar i, ACJ)**<br> 29.12.2023<br>_Arpan_|