01Facts
The petitioner, a Senior Veterinary Officer, was transferred from Veterinary Hospital, Vikasnagar, Dehradun, where he had joined on 10 August 2022, to Veterinary Hospital, Pokhri, Chamoli, by order dated 13 February 2025.
¶ 1–6 · pp. 1–3He challenged the transfer, which was stated to be on administrative grounds.
¶ 1–6 · pp. 1–3The State cited allegations that he was not operating available diagnostic equipment and was not following superior officers’ instructions.
¶ 1–6 · pp. 1–3The petitioner disputed those allegations and contended, among other things, that the statutory approval required for an administrative transfer had not been obtained.
¶ 1–6 · pp. 1–302Issues
i.1. Whether the petitioner’s transfer on administrative grounds was invalid because approval from an officer one rank higher, as required by Section 18(5) of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017, had not been obtained
¶ 2–3 · p. 2ii.2. Whether the transfer was otherwise liable to be set aside on the grounds raised by the petitioner, including his length of service at difficult postings and the allegations relied on by the State
¶ 2–6 · pp. 1–303Law Applied
Section 18(5) of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017 permits the competent authority to issue posting or transfer orders separately from transfers made under clauses (1) to (4), without placing those cases before the transfer committee.
¶ 2 · p. 2Its proviso requires the competent authority, when making a transfer on administrative grounds, to obtain approval from an officer one rank higher.
¶ 2 · p. 2The Court treated that approval as a condition precedent to an administrative transfer.
¶ 7 · p. 4Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
UTTARAKHAND ANNUAL TRANSFER FOR PUBLIC SERVANTS ACT,2017 Section 18
04Reasoning
The Court found that the petitioner’s transfer had been made on administrative grounds without the approval of an officer one rank higher, as required by the proviso to Section 18(5).
¶ 7 · p. 4That statutory non-compliance was sufficient to invalidate the transfer; the Court did not need to determine the merits of the State’s allegations or the petitioner’s other grounds of challenge.
¶ 7 · p. 405Holding
The Court held that the transfer order dated 13 February 2025 could not stand because the required higher-rank approval had not been obtained.
¶ 7–9 · p. 4It allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned transfer order; any pending applications were also disposed of.
¶ 7–9 · p. 4Original Court PDF
SUNIL KUMAR GUPTAvsSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
