Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) Since the issues involved In all the writ petitions are common. the same are being decided together by a comman judgment, For facility, the facts in the wait petition of Bhuvendra Kumar is begin taken into consideration. The petitioner is a Consolidation Lekhpal and has been transferred by an order dated 30.6.2005 by the Consolidation Commissioner, Lucknow to another place outside the district.
(2.) The submission of the learned counsel for the various petitioners is, that the Consolidation Commissioner had no power to transfer the petitioners outside the district The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no provision for transfer of a Consolidation, Lekhpal under The U.P. Consolidation Lekhpals, Services Rules, 1978 ( hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1978). It was further submitted that since Rule 2 of the aforesaid Service Rules of 1978 provides that the status of a Consolidation Lekhpal would be that of a group 'D' post, therefore, the Group 'D' Employees Service Rules 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1985). Would be applicable to she case of the petitioners and even these Rules of 1985 do not provide for any provision for a transfer of an employee on a Group 'D' post to any place outside the District. The learned counsels. for the petitioners submitted that the work performed by the petitioners as a Consolidation Lekhpal is similar to that performed by a Lekhpal appointed under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1901) and, therefore, the. lekhpal Services. Rules 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1958) framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India would be applicable to the petitioners. Rule 21 of 1958 Rules provides for a transfer of a Lekhpal from one halka to another halka within district. The learned counsel for the petitioners therefore submitted that since Rule 21 of the Lekhpals Service Rules, 1958 provides only for a transfer of a Lekhpal from one halka to another halka within the district. the Consolidation Commissioner had no power to transfer the. petitioners outside the district. In support of their submission, the learned counsels for the petitioners have relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Govind Ram v. Land Record Officer, Pauri Garhwal and Ors. 1999(3) ESC 2136, in which it was held that the Commissioner had no power to transfer the Lekhpals from one district to another district.
(3.) On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Lekhpals Service Rules, 1958 are not applicable to the case of the petitioners who have been appointed as Consolidation Lekhpal under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1953) by the Settlement Officer and the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation Lekhpals Services Rules 1978 has been specifically framed for the Consolidation Lekhpals. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that transfer is an incident of service and that in view of the Rules 11 and 15 of the Fundamental Rules read with Rule 24 of the 1978 Rules, the Consolidation Commissioner had power and authority to transfer the Petitioners from one district to another district.;