The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to the respondent Government not to apply the Transfer Policy 27-06-2006.
The PIL has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
“I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and restraining the respondents forthwith from invoking the method of “Attachment”, in favor of chosen few, whereby although as per policy a person cannot be posted at a Sugam place and has to invariably give services in the difficult and backward areas of the State, situated in Hilly Terrains, however though being shown to be posted there on papers but is actually attached with an office situated at place like Dehradun, Haridwar, Udham Singh Nagar or Haldwani, which are plain developed areas, where he marks his presence at his place of attachment and draws salary against the post against which he is shown to be posted on papers only, say at Pithoragarh, Uttarkashi, Chamoli, which are situated at altitude and are not so developed and in fact are the places, which actually need development, support and services and thereby depriving the inhabitants of hilly and difficult region public services and a chance to develop and progress, which otherwise was the very basis, object, reason and foundation for creation of a separate State of Uttarakhand from the erstwhile undivided State of Uttar Pradesh.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Government not to arbitrarily, unequally, and discriminatorily apply the Transfer Policy 27-06-2006, promulgated by it, in a pick and choose manner, the object of which otherwise was to bring in transparency, precision, and justifiability and do away with hardships, nepotism, and arbitrariness in its actions.
III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and restraining the different departments of the Government from unjustifiably, illegally and arbitrarily opening “CAMP OFFICES”, the method, which is adopted to favor chosen few, by the powers that be, in order to circumvent and breach the provisions of the policy dated 27-6-2006, whereby though the Head office and Principal seat is at place “X”, which is in Hilly area however the officials starts discharging his duties from place “Y”, which is in plain convenient area, by opening a Camp Office although genuinely and bonafidely concept of camp office is to be applied in a case where principal seat is in a developed area, away from the Hilly areas and people living in Hills find it difficult and almost impossible to reach the high Offices of the Government for redressal of their grievances, Camp Office is opened in the difficult, undeveloped, Hilly areas.”
The State Counsel pointed out that subsequent to filing of the petition, the State Legislature has enacted Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017 and the issue raised in the petition is covered by the provisions of the said Act. He further relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra & others; reported in 2013 (4) SCC 465, in which, it is held that no public interest litigation can be filed in respect of service matters. Thus, according to the State Counsel, petition is not maintainable.
The Division Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Pankaj Purohit finds substance in the said contention. The issue raised in the petition is service matter, which is not only covered by the State Legislature, as referred above, but reliefs as claimed in the petition cannot be granted in public interest litigation. Accordingly, petition is dismissed by the High Court.