NIKHILESH OJHA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since a similar question of law is involved in both these writ petitions, we are disposing of both these writ petitions by the following common judgment. We take Writ Petition (S/B) No. 300 of 2018 as the leading case. The petitioner is working as a Transport Tax Officer-I. By virtue of the impugned order dated 05.07.2018 passed by respondent No. 2, he stands transferred from Roorkee to Tehri. It is this transfer which is impugned before us.

(2.) The Legislature of Uttarakhand has enacted an Act called the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act-2017 (Uttarakhand Act No. 1 of 2018) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The case of the petitioner is based on the alleged violation of Section 23 of the Act. Section 23, inter alia, provides that for general transfer in each year, a time table as provided therein has to be observed. The time table, inter alia, provides that the last date of issuing of transfer order by the competent authority is 10th of June of a year. In this case, the impugned transfer order was passed on 05.07.2018, therefore, the order is bad runs the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) This is sought to be countered by Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents by pointing out that time schedule provided under Section 23 of the Act could be altered in relation to Group 'A' and 'B' employees, on the basis of approval of the Chief Minister under Section 21(3) that the period has been extended and it is on that basis that the transfer order of the petitioner has been passed and it is valid. Section 21(3) of the Act reads as follows: