JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these cases, therefore, they are being heard and decided together by this common order. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition No.49 of 2024(S/B) alone are being considered. 2. Petitioners are serving as District Employment Officer/Assistant Employment Officer in the Employment Department of the State. They were transferred to different places, vide order dated 03.02.2024, passed by respondent no. 1. In these writ petitions, they have challenged their transfer on the ground that the provisions contained in Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2017 have been violated while transferring them. 3. On 14.02.2024, learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the provision contained in Section 12 of the aforesaid Act is violated by not inviting options from the petitioners and the exercise, as contemplated in Section 17(1) (a) of the Act was also not undertaken before transferring the petitioners, It was further contended that there has been violation of Section 23 of the Act, inasmuch as, the transfer order was issued after the deadline fixed by the statute. 4. We had granted time to learned State Counsel to get instructions in the matter. Today, learned State Counsel has produced letter dated 15.02.2024 received from the office of Director, Training and Employment. Based on the said letter, learned State Counsel submits that due to vacancy on the post of Employment Officer in several districts, difficulty was being faced in implementation of Government Schemes for providing employment/self employment to the youth, therefore, a proposal was submitted to the Competent Authority seeking permission to deviate from the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the order of transfer passed in respect of the petitioners is protected by Section 27 of the Act. 5. Since proviso to Section 27 of the Transfer Act permits deviation/relaxation from the provisions of the transfer, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the transfer order passed in respect of the petitioners. 6. It is not the case of the petitioners that due to their transfer, their service conditions, have been altered to their prejudice, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the transfer order, which has been passed due to administrative exigencies. 7. The writ petitions fail and are dismissed. No order as to costs.