- (1.) R. B. Misra, J. Heard Sri Somesh Khare holding brief of Sri Girdhar Nath learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THIS matter was listed yesterday in the cause list and it was heard and the matter was to be disposed of on 27-3-2003. No counsel has bothered to appear on behalf of Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad for representing the case of Chairman/secretary, Director or Addl. Director and case was almost to be finalised, however at the end of the day Sri Somesh Khare learned counsel mentioned the matter to point out some relevant aspects, therefore, this matter has been directed to be listed as unlisted matter today. Today also Sri Somesh Khare holding brief of Sri Girdhar Nath has been heard for and on behalf of the petitioner and no counsel on behalf of the respondents has appeared to assist the Court. In this writ petition the order dated 30-5-1998 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the Addl. Director (Admn.) Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad U. P. Kisan Mandi Bhawan, Vibhuthi Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow has been challenged where by 11 persons working in different categories had been transferred in special circumstances in the interest of administration as well as in the interest of service. According to the petitioner The Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Produce Market Committees (Centralised) Services (Amendment) Regulations, 1991 provides in the amended provision of Regulation 24 (1) provides that the transfer of a member of centralised service out of routine could be made by Director or Addl. Director or the Regional Deputy Director (Administration ). According to Regulation 24 (2) which provides as below: " (2) The Director or the Additional Director or the Regional Deputy Director (Administration) may in special circumstances transfer any Mandi Sahayak (Kamdar) from the Market Committee to another Market Committee, within the region or any member of one service holding Group `d' post other than Mandi Sahayak (Kamdar) from one Market Committee to another Market Committee within the district. " According to the learned counsel for the petitioner no special circumstances was existing for transferring the petitioner from the place of posting i. e. from Atarra/jhansi to Mirzapur, however the counter-affidavit has been filed. Nothing has been averred in the counter-affidavit to get assistance for the disposal of the case as it is poorly drafted.
(3.) IN B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1955, their Lordships of the Apex Court laid down as follows (Paragraph 4 of the said AIR): " (4 ). . . . We agree with the view expressed by the learned Judges that transfer is always understood and construed as an incident of service. The words `or other conditions of service' in juxtaposition to the preceding words `denies or varies to his disadvantage his pay, allowances, pension' in Rule 19 (1) (a) must be construed ejusdem generis. Any alteration in the conditions of service must result in prejudice to the Government Servant and some disadvantage touching of his pay, allowances, pension, seniority, promotion, leave etc. It is well understood that transfer of a Government Servant who is appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to another is an ordinary incident of service and therefore, does not result in any alteration of any of the conditions of service to his disadvantage. That a Government Servant is liable to be transferred to a similar post in the same cadre is a normal feature and incident of Government service and no Government Servant can claim to remain in a particular place of in a particular post unless, of course, his appointment itself is to a specified, non-transferable post. . . . " In Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 532, their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down as follows (Paragraph 4 of the said AIR): " (4) In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on the ground of mala fide. A Government Servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders. ";