- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. In the present case, the admitted facts are that by order dated 29th June, 1993 (Annexure '1') issued by the Additional Director, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Gorakhpnr Division, the petitioner, along with some other persons including respondent No. 4 Mohammad Ilyas were transferred. By reason of the said transfer order, the petitioner was posted at the District Hospital, Deoria in the post held by respondent No. 4 Mohammad Ilyas whereas the respondent No. 4 was transferred to the District Leprosy Control Unit, Deoria, in the post held by the petitioner. Both the District Hospital, Deoria and the District Leprosy Control Unit are situated within the same Municipal limits. The respondent No. 4 continued to serve in the District Hospital, Deoria for the last 27 years. By an order dated 3-7-1993 (Annexure '3'), both the peti tioner and respondent No. 4 were released from their respective posts for joining the transferred posts. The petitioner was released by orders dated 5th July, 1993 (Annexures '4' and '5'), and joined his transferred post on 5th July, 1993 (Annexure '6'), whereupon the petitioner was placed for duty in the Pathology Department (Annexure'7') where the petitioner started working since 6th July, 1993 by submitting report (Annexures '8' and '9' ). By an order dated 24th August, 1993 (Annexure '11'), the respondent No. 1 sought to cancel the transfer order dated 29th June, 1993 issued by the respondent No. 3. It is this order which is the subject-matter of challenge in the present writ petition moved by the petitioner Rameshwar Pandey and the respondent No. 4 Mohammad Ilyas, in his turn, defends the said order though Mohammad Ilyas had joined the post to which he was transferred.
(2.) BY order dated 2nd September, 1993. Hon'ble R. A. Sharma, J. , was pleased to allow the writ petition following the decision in the case of Smt. Beena Tripathi v. State of U. P. , 1987 LCD 153, by quashing the impugned order dated 24th August, 1993. The Special Appeal filed against the said order, however, was allowed by an order dated 2nd May, 1995 in view of the Full Bench decision in Special Appeal No. 472 of 1994 delivered on 24th January, 1995 and the order dated 2nd September, 1993 war; set aside and the writ petition was remanded to the learned Single Judge for disposal on merits. By reason of this situation, the contention that order of transfer once implemented cannot be cancelled loses its force. Now the impugned order of transfer is to be looked into on the basis of its merit, namely, on the facts as disclosed in the background of the present case.
(3.) IN the present case, admittedly the respondent No. 4 was working at the same place for 27 years and he was transferred along with some others and only the order of transfer effecting the respondent No. 4 was cancelled. IN the counter-affidavit, a case has been made out by respondent No. 4 that as soon the District Leprosy Officer came to know about the transfer order, he recommended to the Additional Director (Medical Health Services), Gorakhpur for reconsideration of the order dated 29th June, 1993 as posting of respondent No. 4 at Leprosy Control Unit, Deoria was likely to hamper leprosy programme and that the petitioner was working in Leprosy Control Unit since long and, as such, his transfer would adversely effect the Leprosy Cure Programme. A copy of the said recommendation is Annexure 'ca-2'. The respondent No. 4 has further contended that he was permitted to continue on the post only in public interest as he had long experience in dealing with matter relating to blood transfusion and other pathological working. Admittedly both the petitioner and respondent No. 4 are Laboratory Assistant/technicians. The respondent No. 4 in his defence, relies on the recommendation of the District Leprosy Officer contained in Annexure 'ca-2' in order to justify the cancellation of the order of transfer by order dated 24th August, 1993, impugned herein. From the English translation of the impugned order Annexure'11'to the writ petition it is clear that it does not disclose any reason leading to the cancellation of the earlier order of transfer dated 29th June, 1993. The order dated 29th June, 1993, appears to be a routine transfer order. In a letter dated 5th July, 1993 (Annexure '12' to the writ petition) the Chief Secretary Uttar Pradesh directed implementation of all annual transfer orders. The State respondents have not come up with any counter-affidavit. Nothing has been placed before the Court to show as to what was the reason for cancellation of the order of transfer.;