Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/516/2026 of DR GEETA PANT Vs SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION on 5 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY 05th August, 2026 WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 516 of 2026 Dr. Geeta Pant and Others ------Petitioners Versus Secretary Higher Education and Others
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY
05th August, 2026
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 516 of 2026
Dr. Geeta Pant and Others
------Petitioners
Versus
Secretary Higher Education and Others
----Respondents
Presence:-
Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned Standing Counsel with Mr. M.S. Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT: (per Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order of transfer of the petitioners dated 09.06.2026, which is as follows: S.No. Name of Employee/ Subject Place of Present Posting Place of Posting
1. Smt. Geeta Pant (Hindi) Govt. Girls PG College, Haldwawni Govt. PG College, Berinag, Pithoragarh
2. Dr. Harendra Mohan Singh (Commerce) Govt. Girls PG College, Khatima Govt. PG College, Gopeshwar
3. Vikas Ranjan Kumar (History) Govt. PG College Bajpur Govt. PG College Vithyani, Pauri
2. Petitioners have also challenged Clause 6 of the instructions/ circular dated 18.04.2026, which excludes contractual services rendered by the teacher from consideration while computing the length of service under the Transfer Act, 2017.
3. The initial appointment of the petitioners was as a
Guest Lecturer/ Assistant Professor on contractual basis. It was followed by regularization of services of petitioner no.1 on 25.07.2013; petitioner no.2. on 20.09.2010 and; petitioner no.3 on 18.07.2016. Vide Clause 6 of the circular dated 18.04.2026, the contractual services rendered by a teacher prior to regularization has been excluded from consideration while computing the length of service at remote places and according to the petitioners, it is on account of the said reason that they came to be transferred, by the impugned order, to a remote place.
4. The transfer was effected almost two months back and the petitioners must have joined by now. When we confronted learned counsel for the petitioners with the said aspect, he admitted that the petitioners had joined the transferred place. However, he submitted that on account of Clause 6 of circular dated 18.04.2026, the respondents would again prevent the petitioners from seeking transfer to an accessible place in the next year.
5. As it is not disputed before us that transfer order was passed long back and the petitioners have joined at the transferred place, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the transfer order. At the same time, we keep the right of the petitioners to challenge the circular dated 18.04.2026 intact, in case, in future they are prevented from exercising their option to seek transfer to an accessible area on basis of the same.
6. Subject to the above, writ petition is dismissed.
7. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 05.08.2026 SS