JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) The petitioner before this Court is an Instructor Machinist in Government Industrial Training Institute. He is aggrieved by his transfer order dated 06.06.2015, by which he has been transferred from Government Industrial Training Institute, Haridwar to Government Industrial Training Institute, Garur, Bageshwar. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as of now, there is no interim order in favour of the petitioner and he had already joined at the new place of posting i.e., Bageshwar. He further submits that even at Bageshwar, the course for which he is an Instructor, there is presently no course going on at Bageshwar and therefore, he is totally a waste and his services cannot be utilised. 3. Apart from this, the main ground for challenge of the impugned transfer order of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed on administrative ground whereas authority concerned, who has passed the impugned transfer order has not recorded its satisfaction while doing so, which is now mandatory in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Damyanti Bisht Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, reported in 2008 (2) U.D., 517, the relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:- “We accordingly over-rule the view adopted by the Division Bench in the interlocutory order dated 1st July, 2008 in the aforesaid Writ Petition. We, while upholding the aforesaid view, substitute our own opinion by laying down that even though a transfer order on administrative ground per se is not bad in law, no person can be transferred on an administrative ground unless before issuing the transfer order, the Authority competent to transfer has arrived at and recorded his satisfaction, upon due verification and confirmation, about the existence and truthfulness of anyone of the three factors/grounds/considerations warranting the transfer of the person concerned.” 4. In this matter, counter affidavit has been filed by the State. In the counter affidavit, the reason assigned for transferring the petitioner are mainly that appointing authority has a difference of opinion with the petitioner and there is a bad blood between the authority and the petitioner. There is nothing even in the counter affidavit which may suggests that the petitioner has committed any act by which this impugned transfer order can be passed. 5. In view thereof, the writ petition succeeds. There is nothing even in the counter affidavit which may suggests that the petitioner has committed any act by which this impugned transfer order can be passed. 5. In view thereof, the writ petition succeeds. The order dated 06.06.2015 passed by respondent no.2 is hereby quashed and set aside.