SHIKHA MAMGAIN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 10.07.2014 (so far it relates to the petitioner), by which the petitioner has been transferred from the Government P.G. College, Uttarkashi to the Government P.G. College, Ramnagar. Further prayer has been made in the writ petition for a direction to the respondent no.1 to pass another order, amending the transfer order and to pass a suitable order like it was done in the matter of one Dr. Punam Pathak. It has further been prayed that the petitioner may be permitted to work at the Government P.G. College, Uttarkashi until the amended list is issued and further, the vacancy of Assistant Professor (Music) at Government P.G. College, Rishikesh should not be filled till the case is decided by the Court.

(2.) IT is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Professor (Music) on 04.09.2009 and was posted at the Government P.G. College, Uttarkashi. The husband of the petitioner is working as an Assistant Engineer in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Haridwar. The petitioner made a representation to the Secretary, Higher Education, Uttarakhand on 15.09.2009, seeking her transfer at the Government P.G. College, Rishikesh. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed by the petitioner before this Court, in which, a direction was issued for deciding the representation of the petitioner. On 22.02.2013, respondent no.1 informed the petitioner that whenever transfers are made in future, her case will be considered. Ultimately, vide order dated 10.07.2014, the petitioner has been transferred from the Government P.G. College, Uttarkashi to the Government P.G. College, Ramnagar.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner submitted her option and in fact, her name was being considered for transfer to Rishikesh at first instance, but subsequently, the proposal was changed and the petitioner has been transferred to Ramnagar without adopting due process. He contended that the action of the respondents in transferring the petitioner to Ramnagar and not posting her to Rishikesh is a clear nepotism. He contended that since the husband of the petitioner is working at Haridwar, the petitioner should have been posted at nearby place, i.e. at Rishikesh.