Pradeep Kant, J. - (1.) The petitioner who is posted as Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Irrigation Department, Government of U. P. has approached this Court challenging the order of transfer dated 15.7.2000 by means of which the petitioner has been transferred from Lucknow to Sitapur.
(2.) The main thrust of challenge to the order of transfer is that the order recites that the transfer has been effected on the own request of the petitioner whereas the petitioner has categorically asserted in the writ petition that he has not made any request for transfer. In all 21 Assistant Engineers have been transferred by the same order and at the top of the order, it has been recited that the transfers are being made on the own request of the incumbent.
(3.) In para 4 of the writ petition, the petitioner has asserted that he has never requested the authorities concerned for transfer. Para 4 of the writ petition reads as under : "4. That the petitioner had never requested the authorities concerned for transfer but on the other hand, the petitioner has prayed that on account of some personal and domestic problems, the petitioner's transfer may not be made." We required the Engineer-in-Chief of the Irrigation Department to be present and to indicate as to when the petitioner has not made any request for transfer then in what circumstances, the order of transfer has been passed on his own request. The Engineer-in-Chief, Sri V. K. Tyagi appeared before us and stated that the application for transfer of the petitioner was moved by the wife of the petitioner, which was received from reliable sources and treating it to be a representation made on behalf of the petitioner, he has passed the order of transfer transferring the petitioner to Sitapur. He has further stated that the application made two requests ; (i) that the petitioner should be posted at a non-restricted place, as he has already completed minimum period of six years at a restricted place, and (ii) that the petitioner should be posted in certain offices at Lucknow itself. The Engineer-in-chief further stated that looking to the exigency of service, the petitioner was accommodated at Sitapur at a non-restricted post in accordance with the prayer made by his wife and, therefore, if he has not been retained at Lucknow in a non-restricted office, no illegality has been committed by the authority. On a specific query being put to the Engineer-in-chief that under what provision of law, an application moved by the wife for transferring the petitioner from one place to another could be treated to be an application on behalf of the Government employee so as to act upon the said request, the Engineer-in-Chief fairly stated that there is no such rule under the Service Rules or otherwise but it has become customary that such applications are treated as the application moved on behalf of the Government employee and the Government employees often make request for transfer in this manner. We fail to appreciate that when under the Rules wife or a near relation of the employee has no say in transfer of a Government employee, then under which authority of law, the department concedes such request as the request made on behalf of the Government employee. We also enquired from the Engineer-in-Chief that when an application is moved for transfer of a Government employee on his own request or through his wife or some near relation, like father or son, whether such application is confronted to the Government employee through his departmental head so as to get it confirmed as to whether the request has been made by the Government employee or not, the Engineer-in-Chief in response to the said query stated that although a request made either by the employee himself or by any other person including his wife should, of course, be cross-checked and genuineness of the same should be got confirmed from the employee concerned through his departmental head but this practice is also not being followed.;