S. Rafat Alam and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ. - (1.) This Special Appeal under the Rules of this Court arises out of order dated 14.2.2006 of the learned Single Judge, dismissing the appellant's writ petition challenging order dated 12.1.2006 transferring petitioner-appellant from Mandi Samit, Bareilly to Mandi Samiti, Bahedi i.e. within the same district.
(2.) Sri Mahesh Gautam, learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that under Regulation 24(2) of Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Produce Market Committees (Centralized) Service Regulations 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 1984 Regulation), group 'D' employee of the Mandi Samiti cannot be transferred even within the district or region, if there does not exist any special circumstance. It is contended that in the absence of any special circumstance, the Deputy Director (Administration) has no authority or jurisdiction to transfer any group 'D' employee. It is also submitted that the order impugned in the writ petition transferring the appellant does not disclose the existence of special circumstance and this aspect has not been correctly appreciated by the learned Single Judge.
(3.) Sri B.D. Mandhyan, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Satish Mandhyan submitted that the transfer of the appellant is strictly in accordance with Regulation 24(2) of 1984 Regulation. He further stated that Mandi Samit, Bareilly has a large quantum of transactions on account of its bigger size and deficiency in collection of Mandi fee caused serious losses to the respondents, and, therefore, in such circumstance, the appellant has been transferred to Mandi Samiti, Baheri which is within the same district but being a smaller Mandi Samiti, the quantum of work is lesser. He submits that this satisfy the requirement of Regulation 24(2).;