JUDGMENT : Rakesh Thapliyal, J. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs:- “a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 5.1.2024 (Annexure-5) issued by respondent no.2. (b) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (c) Award cost of the petition.” 2. On instructions, Mr. C.S. Rawat, the learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State submits that the total length of service of the petitioner is 23 years 5 months, out of which, 20 years of service, he has rendered in the “Sugam Area” and in the year 2022, he was transferred to Lohaghat, Champawat, which is a “Durgam Area”, where he served only one year. 3. Earlier by an order dated 29th December, 2023, after taking into consideration, some family problems of the petitioner, the petitioner was attached to the office of Agriculture and Soil Conservation Office Roorkee, District Haridwar, which was cancelled by the order impugned dated 5th January, 2024. 4. This order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that without giving any notice and opportunity and further without giving any reason, the earlier order dated 29th December, 2023, has been cancelled. 5. This Court on 12th January, 2024, granted three weeks’ time to the State to file the counter affidavit. The counter affidavit could not be filed. But today, a detailed instruction has been placed before this Court by Mr. C.S. Rawat, the learned Chief Standing Counsel, which is also taken on record. These instructions have been issued by the Director Agriculture, Uttarakhand, and I also perused the same. On perusal of the same, it reveals that the petitioner rendered 20 years of service in the “Sugam Area” and this is the first time, when he was transferred to Lohaghat, which according to the learned Chief Standing Counsel is a “Durgam Area”. 6. Apart from this, Mr. C.S. Rawat, the learned Chief Standing Counsel also pointed out as per the instruction, that the petitioner’s mother also made a representation to the concerned Hon’ble Minister on 19th December, 2023, whereby a request was made either to transfer or to attach the petitioner to the office of Agriculture and Soil Conservation Office Roorkee, District Haridwar. 7. Mr. C.S. Rawat, the learned Chief Standing Counsel also pointed out as per the instruction, that the petitioner’s mother also made a representation to the concerned Hon’ble Minister on 19th December, 2023, whereby a request was made either to transfer or to attach the petitioner to the office of Agriculture and Soil Conservation Office Roorkee, District Haridwar. 7. Mr. C.S. Rawat, the learned Chief Standing Counsel by giving reference of the provisions of Uttarakhand Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 2002, submits that making a representation by the mother of the petitioner for transfer of the petitioner to Roorkee to the Hon’ble Minister amounts to a misconduct. 8. I do not find any illegality in the order impugned, particularly, keeping in view of the fact that the petitioner rendered 22 years of service in the “Sugam Area” and he was rightly transferred to Lohaghat as per the provisions of the Transfer Act. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. 9. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits to this Court that now the petitioner is giving an undertaking that he will join the transferred place, i.e., Lohaghat, District Champawat, within a period of three days from today. In view of this, the present writ petition is dismissed.