In a significant ruling, the Uttarakhand High Court has put a stop to the transfer of a sub-divisional forest officer in Kalsi, declaring that the move flouted state laws designed to prevent arbitrary postings of public servants.
Court Finds Transfer Legally Flawed
The bench, comprising Justices Ravindra Maithani and Alok Mahra, issued an interim stay on the transfer order for Rajiv Nayan Nautiyal on Monday. The court found that the order, issued by the principal secretary of forests on December 11, violated key provisions of the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017.
The judges pointed out that Nautiyal had not completed the mandatory minimum tenure in his current position in Chakrata. A plain reading of the law, the court observed, showed the transfer lacked the necessary legal backing and was issued prematurely.
The Legal Challenge and Alleged Motive
Rajiv Nayan Nautiyal had petitioned the high court against his transfer. His counsel argued that the move directly contravened the 2017 Act, which establishes clear guidelines for tenure and approval procedures to ensure transparency.
The petition revealed a potential motive for the transfer. Nautiyal's legal team contended that the order was issued because the officer had opposed construction activity within a reserved forest area. This opposition was formally recorded in a letter he wrote to the divisional forest officer of the Chakrata forest division on August 18, 2025.
State's Defense Fails in Court
During the hearing, the court asked the state's counsel to specify under which provision of the Act the transfer was authorized. The counsel referred to Section 21(3), which permits transfers of Group A and B officers with the chief minister's approval, but crucially, only after the date indicated in the official timetable under Section 23.
The court noted that the state counsel could not identify which specific clause had been followed in Nautiyal's case. It emphasized that Section 21(3) clearly mandates such transfers can only occur after the stipulated period and in strict accordance with the Act's provisions.
Granting interim relief, the bench ordered, "Having considered, as an interim measure, till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the impugned order shall remain in abeyance qua the petitioner."
Upholding the Spirit of the 2017 Act
This ruling reinforces the purpose of the 2017 Uttarakhand Annual Transfer Act, which was enacted to curb arbitrary and politically motivated transfers. The law mandates:
- Fixed tenures for public servants.
- A common, scheduled transfer window.
- Proper authorization from designated authorities for all transfers.
Courts have consistently upheld these safeguards, staying premature transfers where due process was ignored. This case underscores the judiciary's role in enforcing administrative transparency and protecting officials from arbitrary actions.
