R K SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER challenges Annexure -1 order dated 26.05.2014, by which the petitioner, who is working as a Senior Entomologist, has been transferred from Almora to Pithoragarh. Originally, the petitioner was working at Dehradun; the party respondent was working at Haldwani. It appears that the petitioner gave an option on 14.08.2013 for being transferred to either Nainital or Chamba. Still later, he gave a further option, according to the respondents, on 11.11.2013 for being transferred to Bageshwar or Almora or Pithoragarh in preferential order. Petitioner, however, was initially transferred to Almora. The party respondent was transferred to Pithoragarh. It is, thereafter, that the petitioner has been transferred to Pithoragarh and the party respondent is transferred to Almora in the place where the petitioner was originally transferred.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) LEARNED senior counsel for the petitioner would complain of mala fides. He would submit that the petitioner has already been transferred to Almora accepting his choice. He has shifted with his family to Almora; his children are admitted in schools at Almora. At this time, to transfer him to Pithoragarh and to transfer the party respondent in his place is a clear act of malafide. In this connection, he would point out that the Speaker of the Legislature has intervened on behalf of the party respondent and that is clear from the counter affidavit of the fourth respondent itself. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that when the original transfer took place, as per which, the petitioner was transferred to Almora and the party respondent was transferred to Pithoragarh, the party respondent involved an MLA and it was sought to be made out that the party respondent's mother -in -law was ill. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also would submit that the party respondent's wife is working at Haldwani.