HEMLATA SAINI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Vikas Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

(2.) The first petitioner, an Assistant Professor in Sociology, was transferred, along with her husband, from Ram Nagar in Nainital District to Pithoragarh on 13.09.2018 on completion of 6 years of service at Ram Nagar. Both of them submitted a joint representation seeking their transfer to either Tehri, or Rudrapur or Kashipur in Udham Singh Nagar District, contending that the second petitioner's father was suffering from a heart ailment.

(3.) While we find considerable force in the submission of Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State, that the medical facilities available in these three places, to which the petitioners seeks transfer to, are more or less on par with the medical facilities available at Pithoragarh where they are presently working, we see no reason to undertake an examination of these issues since these are all matters for the first respondent to decide in the light of the representation submitted by the petitioners in this regard on 05.10.2018 and 20.11.2019, and not for this Court to adjudicate. We consider it appropriate, therefore, to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the first respondent to consider the petitioners' representation in accordance with law at the earliest, and in any event within four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.