DR GANESH CHANDRA MANDOLIYA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010175432026
2026:UHC:9351-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Writ Petition (S/B)No.647 of 2026
14 October, 2026
Dr. Ganesh Chandra Mandoliya --Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, learned
counsel
Counsel for the State/respondents : Mr. J.C. Pandey, learned Standing
Counsel
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)
Petitioner is serving as Senior Veterinary Officer
in Animal Husbandry Department of the State. He made a
representation to add two years ten months service
rendered by him in Pashu Sewa Kendra, Khadkatiya,
Chaukhutiya, District – Almora in his service history, for the
purpose of transfer to accessible area. His representation
was rejected by the Director (Animal Husbandry) vide order
dated 05.08.2026. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has
approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
I- Issue a writ, rule, order or direction in the
nature of certiorari calling for records and
to quash and set aside the impugned order
dated 05.08.2026 passed by respondent
no.2, whereby he has rejected the
representation of petitioner by stating that
since there is no apparent provision under
1
UKHC010175432026
2026:UHC:9351-DB
the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer of Public
Servants Act, 2017 to add the past services
of accessible / remote areas of different
cadre for the purposes of transfer in the
services of instant promoted cadre of
petitioner. (Annexure No.8) (Page No. 89-
90)
II- Issue a writ, rule, order or direction in the
nature of Mandamus, commanding and
directing the Respondent no.2 to add the
services of 2 Years 10 Months and 9 Days,
rendered by petitioner at Pashu Seva
Kendra, Khadkatiya, Chaukhutiya, District
Almora in the service history of petitioner,
and accordingly amend the Service History
of petitioner, as maintained by Respondent
department.
III- Issue a writ, rule, order or direction in the
nature of Mandamus, commanding and
directing the respondents to include the
name of petitioner in the future eligibility
list, prepared under the provisions of
Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public
Servants Act, 2017 for Compulsory Transfer
from Remote Areas to Accessible Areas and
consider his name for transfer against the
future vacancies or resultant vacancies.
IV- Issue any other, other writ, rule, order or
direction, which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of
the case.
V- Cost of petition may be awarded in favour
of petitioners.
2. The reason assigned for rejecting petitioner’s
representation is that there is no provision in the Annual
Transfer Act, 2017 for adding the services rendered by a
government servant in some other cadre.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
2
UKHC010175432026
2026:UHC:9351-DB
Section 7(c) of the Transfer Act, 2017 provides for taking
into account the entire service rendered by an employee,
therefore, the reason assigned for rejecting petitioner’s
representation is legally unsustainable. He further submits
that similar provision is made in Section 11(b) of the
Transfer Act, 2017.
4. For ready reference Section 7(b) and Section
11(b) of the Transfer Act, 2017 are reproduced below:
“7. Norms of compulsory transfer from
accessible area to remote area —7. There shall be
following norms for compulsory transfer from
accessible areas to remote areas; namely: -
(a)………
(b) The employees, who are working for less
than 04 years at present place of posting in
accessible area but during whole service period have
served in accessible area for more than 10 years,
shall also be compulsorily transferred from accessible
area to remote area subject to availability of
vacancies/posts in remote area as above: Kind of
Annual transfer Norms of compulsory transfer from
accessible area to remote area Identification and
disclosure of accessible and remote areas.
Provided that for the counting of total service
period in accessible area the proviso of definition of
accessible area given in Appendix specified in section
3 of this Act shall also be taken into consideration;”
“11. Maximum Ceiling of Compulsory
Transfer— 11. The maximum ceiling of compulsory
transfer from a remote area to accessible area shall
be as follows; namely:-
(a)……..
(b) Such employees who are posted for more
than 03 years at their place of posting or
rendered services for more than 10 years,
during the whole service period in remote area
shall be identified for transfer in descending
order according to the total period of posting in
remote area in their whole service period upto
the limit of availability of vacancies in
accessible area.”
3
UKHC010175432026
2026:UHC:9351-DB
5. Per contra, learned State Counsel, submits that
petitioner is seeking transfer from remote to accessible area
and his length of service in remote area is falling short of
what is required, therefore, he has filed this writ petition for
adding the earlier service rendered by him at Chaukhutiya,
District – Almora, in some other cadre.
6. He further submits that Section 7 of the Transfer
Act, 2017 is attracted only in case of compulsory transfer
from accessible area to remote area, therefore, reliance on
the said provision by petitioner is misplaced.
7. He further submits that petitioner, was appointed
as a group ‘C’ employee against the post of Livestock
Extension Officer; and he was sponsored by the State
Government for admission in Bachelor of Veterinary Science
and Animal Husbandry (for Short ‘B.V.Sc. & A.H.’) course
against a seat reserved for departmental candidate and
petitioner pursued B.V.Sc & A.H. course at Government’s
expense and during paid leave and, upon successful
completion of that course, he was inducted into a new
service, namely, Veterinary Officer.
8. Learned State Counsel, thus, submits that since
petitioner is now a member of a new cadre i.e. Veterinary
Officer which requires different academic qualification,
therefore, service rendered by the petitioner at some
remote place while serving as Livestock Extension Officer
4
UKHC010175432026
2026:UHC:9351-DB
cannot be added in the present service history of the
petitioner.
9. It is further contended that since petitioner was
inducted in a new cadre, therefore, his seniority was drawn
afresh as per the recruitment rules applicable to Veterinary
Officers and, for all intents and purposes, petitioner is a
fresh appointee in the cadre of Veterinary Officer.
10. Learned State Counsel, thus, submits that
petitioner cannot carry the birth mark of his past service
after induction into a new cadre.
11. We do not find any reason to interfere with the
order passed by Director (Animal Husbandry) impugned in
this writ petition. It is not disputed that petitioner was
inducted in an entirely different cadre of Veterinary Officer
for which qualification needed is B.V.Sc & A.H.
12. Law is well settled that a promotee cannot carry
birth marks after induction into a different cadre. In other
words, once employees from different entry streams (such
as direct recruits, departmental promotees or fast track
exam entrants) are promoted into a single unified cadre,
their source of origin (birth mark) is completely erased and
they fuse into a single class and must be treated equally
regarding pay, seniority and service conditions.
13. The expression “service rendered during whole
5
UKHC010175432026
2026:UHC:9351-DB
service period” used in Section 11(b) of the Transfer Act,
2017 refers to the service rendered in the same cadre and
if a government servant is inducted into a different cadre,
which requires different/ higher qualification for
appointment, then service rendered by him in a remote
area in the previous cadre cannot be added to the service
rendered by him after induction in a new cadre.
14. Learned State Counsel is right in submitting that
Section 7 is attracted in the case of compulsory transfer
from accessible area to remote area only and it is not
applicable in the present case as petitioner is desirous of
transfer from remote to an accessible area.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not
find any reason to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the
writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.
__________________________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, A.C.J.
___________________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 14.10.2026
ss
6