Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/409/2026 of RASHMI PANT Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 8 July 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY WRIT PETTION (S/B) NO. 409 of 2026 08th July, 2026 Dr. Rashmi Pant -----Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others ----Respondents
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY
WRIT PETTION (S/B) NO. 409 of 2026
08th July, 2026
Dr. Rashmi Pant
-----Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others
----Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Chetan Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT : (per Mr. 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 petitioner feeling aggrieved by her transfer as teacher (History) Government Girls P.G. College, Haldwani to Government Degree College, Pawakidevi, Tehri, has filed the present writ petition. The place to which the petitioner has been transferred is inaccessible place.
2. The transfer order has been challenged on following grounds:- (a) Firstly, that, in case, the service rendered by the petitioner at remote place prior to her regularization is counted, she had completed the statutory maximum period of service required to be rendered at remote place, therefore, she was exempt from transfer.
(b) Secondly, on the ground that the daughter of the petitioner is suffering from a rare disease, namely, Solitary Ectopic Kidney where the person has a single
‘unassended fused kidney’ which adversely affects the development of reproductive system and results in other abnormalities and thus requires constant medical care at a specialized centre.
3. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has annexed reports of various hospitals evidencing the fact that her daughter is suffering from the aforesaid disease.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be granted liberty to represent to the respondents and prays that appropriate direction be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically.
5. Learned State Counsel submits that the disease from which the daughter of the petitioner is stated to be suffering is not mentioned in the definition clause of ‘serious patient’ and for other serious diseases not specified, report of State Medical Board is needed to seek exemption from transfer.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions, the writ petition is disposed of as follows:- (a) The petitioner shall make representation before the Competent Authority within one week along with documentary evidence in support of the medical condition of her daughter.
(b) The Competent Authority shall get the daughter of the petitioner examined by the State Medical Board within two weeks. The report of the State Medical Board shall thereafter be placed before the Committee constituted under Section 27 and based on the decision of the Committee, appropriate decision would be taken in relation to the transfer of the petitioner.
7. Until the aforesaid exercise is completed, the effect and operation of the impugned transfer order shall remain in abeyance.
8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 08.07.2026 KKS/PP