WPSB/224/2025 of AARTI PATHAK Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALTHE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR AND

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. ALOK MAHRA Writ Petition (S/B) No.224 of 202518[th] June, 2025

Dr. Aarti Pathak

--Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel along with Mr. S.M.S. Mehta, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel along with Mr.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT :(per Mr. G. Narendar C. J.)

The petitioner is before this Court calling in

question the order dated 10.06.2025, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Government Ayurvedic Hospital Roorkee, Haridwar to District Hospital, Ayush Wing (Male), Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal in term of Annexure no.3 to the writ petition.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she has

been given ten options in remote areas, but none of options have been considered by the competent authority and despite her numerous options, she has

been transferred to District Hospital at Pauri Garhwal.

3. Recording the submissions, this Court had directed the respondents to secure instructions as to why the options exercised by the petitioner have not been considered.

4. Today, the learned Standing Counsel has placed before the Court, the instructions addressed to the Chief Standing Counsel of the High Court. In the instructions, it is stated as under:-…

“The petitioner has rendered total service of 10 years 4 months 21 days in the accessible area and only 1 year 4 months 12 days in the remote area and does not fall under the exemption category. Therefore, based on service in accessible area, the petitioner is eligible for transfer to remote area as per Section 8 of the Annual Transfer Act, 2017. The name of the petitioner is listed at serial no. 23 in the eligibility list for transfer from accessible area to remote area. (Annexure 01-Colly)

It is brought to your notice that for online transfer, the department had directed the employees to apply only for presently vacant posts.

1. Govt. Ayurvedic Hospital, Pokharkhal (paudi garwal)

2.Govt. Ayurvedic Hospital, Mahanchatti (paudi garwal) garwal)

3. Govt. Ayurvedic Hospital, hindolakhal (Tehri)

4. Govt. Ayurvedic Hospital, Gular (Tehri)

5. Govt. Ayurvedic Hospital, mala (paudi garwal)

6. Govt. Ayurvedic Hospital, chamba (Tehri)

7. Govt. Ayurvedic Hospital, bagi(Tehri)

8. Govt. Ayurvedic Hospital, Bachelikhal (Tehri)

9. Govt. Ayurvedic Hospital, bauth bharpur (Tehri)

10. Govt. Ayurvedic Hospital, muldhar (Tehri)

The petitioner and another medical officer, Dr. Manisha

Chauhan, had applied for Govt. Ayurvedic Hospital, mala (paudi garwal).

Section 17(1)(a) of the Uttarakhand annual Transfer Act provides:

"Provided that if more than one employee out of total employees identified for transfer have given option in same preferential order for particular vacancy identified in remote area, the vacancy shall be allotted to such employee who have served for the least period in accessible area:." (Annexure 02)

It is to be noted that Dr. Manisha Chauhan has total service of 08 years 07 months 13 days in the accessible area (Annexure 03), whereas the petitioner has more than 10 years 4 months 21 days. Therefore, due to less duration of service in the accessible area, Dr. Manisha Chauhan was transferred to Govt. Ayurvedic Hospital, mala (paudi garwal) and as per Section 17(1)(a) of the Act, it was not legally feasible to transfer the petitioner to Govt. Ayurvedic Hospital mala (paudi garwal).

For the annual transfer 2025-26, the Committee constituted under Ayurveda and Unani Services Department, considered the eligible applications for compulsory transfer from accessible area to remote area in accordance with Section 17(1)(a) of the Act. Due to the non-availability of the preferred vacant posts as per the petitioner's submission, the petitioner could not be transferred to the desired location.

Regarding the issue of mutual transfer with Dr. Monika yadav, another Medical Officer, it is clarified that the petitioner's name was listed at serial no. 23 in the list from accessible area to remote area, whereas Dr. Monika yadav's name was at serial no. 127 in the list from remote to accessible area. (Annexure 04). The department had fixed 20% limit for transfers.

As per this limit, the petitioner Dr. Aarti was within the prescribed upper limit for transfer from accessible to remote area in the year 2025-26, whereas Dr. Monika yadav was not within the prescribed upper limit for transfer from remote to accessible area. Therefore, Dr. Monika yadav's transfer in the current session was not legally feasible, and hence no mutual transfer was done by the department between the petitioner and Dr. Monika yadav.”

The above instructions are reiterated by the

learned Standing Counsel for the State. From reading of the instructions, it is apparent that the competent

authority has acted fair and square and, neither is there an element of victimization nor can any mala fides be imputed. The facts set out in the instructions are not disputed and, in that view of the matter, we do not find any warrant to interfere with the order of transfer dated 10.06.2025.

6. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected.

(G. NARENDAR, C. J.)

(ALOK MAHRA, J.) Dated: 18.06.2025 BS