U.C. Srivastava, J. - (1.) In view of the conflicting decisions of this Court a Division Bench of this Court formulated one question of law and the papers were placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice and the said question has been referred to this Full Bench. The question was:- "Whether a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order can be issued by the High Court for enforcement of a request addressed by a superior officer to a subordinate officer." The facts leading to this reference are that the petitioner to the writ petition who was posted at Government Hospital, Shohratgarh, Basti under the Administrative Control of Chief Medical Officer, Basti was transferred under his order to Primary Health Centre, Mohan Kala, Basti which was a local transfer. On the representation of the wife of the petitioner to the Health Minister through the Chairman, U. P. Export Corporation Ltd. who forwarded the same to the Minister with his recommendatory letter, the Minister gave certain directions to the Additional Director, Gorakhpur to take steps for cancellation of transfer order. The Additional Director, Gorakhpur vide letter dated 27-5-1989 asked the Chief Medical Officer (hereinafter referred to as the C. M. O.) to cancel the transfer order. In the meantime district Basti was bifurcated and a new district Siddharth Nagar was carved out and Sohratgardh fell in district Siddharth Nagar. Copy of said letter was also endorsed to the C. M. O., Siddharth Nagar inviting his attention to the Additional Director') letter and requested him to deal with the matter at his level as the petitioner was posted under him.
(2.) On the representation of the petitioner, the C. M. O., Siddharth Nagar required him to take charge at the transferred place. Again the petitioner's wife made a representation to the Director General, Medical, Health and Family Welfare (for short D. G.) mentioning therein that the petitioner is to retire within a period of two years. On 15-7-1989 a letter issued from the office of the D. G. addressed to C. M.O. Siddharth Nagar in which the latter was required to ensure compliance of orders dated 11-5-1989 and 27-5-1989 of the Minister and the Additional Director respectively. The C. M. O. did not cancel the transfer order and asked him to join at the transferred place as a condition where after his letters will be considered and compliance report may be sent. The transfer order was implemented. On behalf of the petitioner reliance was laced on two decisions of this court, one decided on the date it was presented and another after hearing learned counsel for the parties The first case Dr. Bipin Behari Dube v. Additional Director was decided on 12-8-1987 and another Ram Gopal Gupta v. Additional Director was decided on 12-1-1987. In Ram Gopal's case the Division Bench has justified the court's interference by stating that if the subordinate officer flouts the orders of the Superior Officer, it would lead to administrative anarchy. In the first case it was held that the Additional Director was bound to carry out directions. In the latter case it was held that the Additional Director is bound by the orders of the superior authority and he shall obey the order of the Minister as communicated to him by the Director. He shall not act upon the order of transfer passed earlier. While in the first case it was also held that so long as the order dated 9-9-1986 passed by Joint Director has not been varied, revoked or rescinded, the Additional Director is bound by the order of the superior officer. It will lead to administrative anarchy if the orders passed by the superior authorities are flouted by the subordinate authorities. The Division Bench expressed the view that if the superior officer himself is satisfied and does not care for implementation and is not serious about it, the implementation can be brought about by taking disciplinary action against the erring officer and the courts hardly have the means to fathom the reasons for the superior officer's disinclination to enforce compliance of his own order. If the superior officer himself is not willing to get his order enforced, then the High Court should not interfere with the same. No writ of mandamus can be issued for enforcement of departmental manuals or instructions not having any statutory force, or concession. Such departmental manual or instructions do not create any legal right in favour of the petitioner.
(3.) In the instant case it was contended on behalf of the State that the letter in question was in the nature of request and at best it was in the nature of departmental instructions. Reference was made to the case of Shanti Kumari v. Regional Deputy Director and others 1981 (2) SCC 72, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if that be so, the authorities will look into the matter and redress the grievance of the appellant. The Government in exercise of executive powers has issued certain instructions or directions in the matter of transfers laying down certain guidelines which enjoins upon the officers to follow and the instructions which have been placed before us, there appears to be no categorical direction of the State Government in this behalf. The use of word 'ordinarily' in the Government Orders permit deviation or departure from the guidelines in exceptional cases. In the case of B. Vardha Rao v. State of Karnataka, 1986 (4) SCC 131, the Court held that the transfer of Government servant app Anted to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to another is an ordinary incident of service and executive directions laying down certain guidelines in the matter of transfer are merely directory and not mandatory.;