Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) THE only ground of challenge is that the impugned order has been passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) Chandauli transferring the petitioner from one tehsil to another within the same district though under Rule 21 of Lekhpal Service Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") it is only the Collector who is empowered to transfer the petitioner from one tehsil to another within the district. Reliance is placed on Rule 3(c) of the Rules which defines "Collector" as "the Collector of district" and it is contended that the Additional District Magistrate is not Collector of the District and hence the impugned order of transfer is wholly without jurisdiction.
(2.) I find no force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that "Collectors" or "Additional Collectors" are appointed by the State Government in exercise of its power under under Section 14 and 14 -A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. Both these provisions came to be considered before a Full Bench of this Court in Brahm Singh v. Board of Revenue and Ors., 2008 (5) ADJ 331. Reading the provisions in the context of purposive interpretation, the Full Bench held that the term "Collector" used in statute has to be read by including Additional Collector also since he is appointed for the district and is not as such subordinate to Collector, as is evident from the following: Therefore, while construing the word 'Collector' as defined in 1950 Act, it is relevant and necessary to read the other provisions and statutes which are part of the same scheme, harmoniously and collectively so that the object and purpose of the enactment and the intent of the legislature are construed correctly. The declaration under Sub -section 4 of Section 14 -A provides that every Additional Collector appointed under 1901 Act is a 'Collector' of the District in respect to such powers and duties which he exercises in the District as assigned to him by the concerned Collector and for that purpose it shall be deemed as if he is the Collector of the District. Once a declaration has been made in the statute itself, the same would carry to 1950 Act also inasmuch as in respect to such matters 'Additional Collector' would be the 'Collector' of the District. The reason for adding the requirement of issuance of a notification by the State Government empowering 'Assistant Collector of first class' would be clear from a bare reading of Section 15 of 1901 Act, which shows that though an Assistant Collector is also appointed in the District and he is a subordinate officer to the Collector, but there is no declaration like Sub -section 4 of Section 14 -A in Section 15 that the Assistant Collector would also be treated to be a Collector of the District when he will be discharging duties assigned to him by the Collector or any other authority competent to do so in respect to the said District. Sub -section 4 of Section 3 of 1951 Act provides that only those Assistant Collector of first class are included within the meaning of Collector who are empowered by the State Government by Notification in the Gazette to discharge all or any of the functions of the Collector under the aforesaid Act. Thus, the issuance of notification by the State Government was necessitated because of absence of any provision like Sub -section (4) of Section 14 -A of 1901 Act where under the order passed by an Additional Collector while exercising power or discharging any duty as a Collector would be deemed to be an order under that Act. Therefore, the Legislature while defining the Collector under Sub -section (4) of Section 3 of 1950 Act provides that the Collector means an officer appointed as Collector under the provisions of 1901 Act and by legal fiction in view of Sub -section (4) of Section 14 -A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, it would include Additional Collector also when he acts and discharges the duties of the Collector as authorised under Sub -section (3) of Section 14 -A. We are, therefore, of the view that as per definition given in Sub -section (4) of Section 3 of Act No. 1 of 1950, Collector will include Additional Collector also when he discharges the duties and functions of the Collector as provided under Sub -section (3) of Section 14 -A of 1901 Act. In view of the discussions made above, answer of question No. 1 can only be in affirmative, i.e., the power and functions of the Collector can be exercised by the Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by the Collector of the district. In support of our above view, it would be relevant to refer a Single Judge judgment rendered by His Lordship Hon'ble V. Bhargava (as His Lordship then was) in Baikuntha Narain Major and Ors. v. Surend and Ors., 1954 ALJ 602 where referring to Section 14 -A(4) of 1901 Act and applying the same in a similar kind of controversy occurred with reference to Section 2 of U.P. Land Utilization Act, 1948, his Lordship held as under: This means that the Legislature by this fiction intended that an Additional Collector, once he is empowered under Sub -section (3) of Section 14 -A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, should have the status of and should be treated as if he were "the Collector" of the district for purposes of the U.P. Land Revenue Act as well as for purposes of every other law for the time being applicable to a Collector. Section 14 -A(4) of 1901 Act was again considered in Ratan Raj v. R.A. Rahmani, Election Tribunal, Meerut and Ors., 1960 RD 149, and the Division Bench of this Court following the judgement in Baikuntha Narain Major and Ors. v. Surend and Ors. (supra) observed as under: Sub -section (4) of Section 14 -A provides that the Additional Collector when exercising any power of discharging any duty under Sub -section (3), would be deemed "as if he were the Collector of the District." The Election Tribunal has overlooked these words which enact the legal fiction that the Additional Collector should be deemed to be the Collector of the District. The legislature has by these words endowed him with the 'personae' of the Collector so that Sri Gauri Shanker Singh, though in fact the Additional Collector, would in law be deemed to have acted as the Collector of the District while receiving the petitioner's election petition. The Tribunal's opinion that the election was not validly presented to him is therefore patently wrong. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view expressed by their Lordships in the above cases, which also finds support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and Ors. v. Raja Syed Mohammad Sadat Ali Khan : AIR 1960 SC 1283. In view of the above law laid down by the Full Bench, in my view, the impugned order of transfer cannot be invalidated only on the ground that the same has been passed by the Additional Collector i.e. Additional District Magistrate and not by Collector. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.;