- (1.) THIS is an intra-Court appeal arising from the judgment/order of Hon'ble Single Judge dated 27. 11. 2007 dismissing the appellant's Writ Petition No. 57927 of 2007 against the order transferring him from Jaunpur to Ghazipur.
(2.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and also perused the record. It is vehemently contended that the appellant being Urdu Translator can not be transferred from one district to another district in view of the Government Order dated 31. 3. 1989. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referring to the aforesaid Government Order submitted that the transfer of class-Ill employees outside the district is not permissible. He further submitted that the transfer of Urdu Translator outside the district has been stayed by Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 18412 of 2000 vide order dated 19. 4. 2000. We are not convinced with the submission for the reason that the aforesaid Government Order dated 31. 3. 1989 was issued laying transfer policy for the year 1989-90 and that stands superseded by the subsequent Government Orders including the Government Order dated 24. 5. 2007, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure-4 to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application. From perusal thereof, it is apparent that all the earlier transfer policy stands superseded. It is not in dispute that the appellant holds a transferable post. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has been transferred against the post of Urdu Translator. Besides that, it appears from the impugned order of transfer that the same has been made in public interest. Thus, we do not find any factual or legal error in the judgment under appeal.
(3.) SO far as the contention that another Single Judge has stayed the order of transfer of Urdu Teacher outside the district vide order dated 19. 4. 2000 is concerned, the same can also not be accepted for the reason that the order of Hon'ble Single Judge is not binding on the Division Bench and' that apart it is merely an interim order without recording any reason. It is well settled legal position that it is the ratio which is binding. Since no ratio has been laid down in the aforesaid order and thus, it is of no help to the appellant. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed summarily. .;