The Uttarakhand High Court reaffirmed that when an impugned transfer order is cancelled during the pendency of a writ petition, continuation of such litigation serves no useful purpose and must be dismissed. This decision confirms established precedent and holds binding value for similar cases in administrative and public service law contexts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPSS/1120/2023 of PRIYANKA PRASAD Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010106062023 |
| Date of Registration | 06-07-2023 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Uttarakhand |
| Type of Law | Administrative / Service Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether continuance of a writ petition, filed against a transfer order, is required after the impugned transfer order has already been cancelled. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that once the impugned transfer order is cancelled by the employer/State, the grievance of the petitioner becomes academic and no useful purpose is served by keeping the writ pending. Accordingly, such writ petitions should be dismissed as infructuous. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner, serving as Assistant Teacher, challenged her transfer. The State later cancelled the order. Both counsels agreed to the factual position, resulting in dismissal of the petition. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and administrative tribunals handling similar matters |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that if an impugned administrative (transfer) order is cancelled during proceedings, the writ petition challenging said order is rendered infructuous and liable to be dismissed.
- Lawyers should monitor administrative action subsequent to filing and promptly move for withdrawal or disposal if the client’s grievance is redressed by cancellation.
- Saves judicial time and prevents unnecessary litigation in service matters where original cause of action ceases to exist.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court acknowledged the statement by the State Counsel, confirmed by the petitioner’s Counsel, that the transfer order stood cancelled.
- Upon such cancellation, the substratum of the petition (challenge to the transfer) was no longer in existence.
- Court observed that there would be no “useful purpose” in continuing the writ, thus it must be dismissed as infructuous.
- The reasoning is rooted in the principle of avoiding academic or redundant judicial proceedings once the underlying grievance is resolved.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- No specific standalone arguments advanced, as petitioner’s counsel endorsed the statement of cancellation by the State.
Respondent (State):
- Submitted that the impugned transfer order was cancelled by subsequent order.
Factual Background
The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher in Government Inter College, Karanpur, District Nainital, was transferred to Government Inter College, Shitlakhet, District Almora by order dated 26.06.2023. Feeling aggrieved, she filed the present writ petition to challenge the transfer. Subsequently, the State cancelled the transfer order by order dated 26.07.2023. Both sides confirmed this fact to the Court.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court proceeded under its writ jurisdiction, considering the maintainability of the petition in light of the factual change (cancellation of the transfer order).
- No specific statute was interpreted or analyzed in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.