- (1.) ANJANI Kumar and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. The appellant is working as a Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department of State of U. P. He has been transferred by the impugned order of transfer dated 30th July, 2007. The petitioner has filed a writ petition challenging the aforesaid transfer order which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge has specifically observed that the peti tioner has already filed a representation against the transfer order dated 30th July, 2007. Therefore, the same be decided by a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of a certi fied copy of this order. This judgment of the learned Single Judge is under chal lenge by means of this appeal.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been transferred on the recommendation made by MLA in his letter, therefore, according to the decision of this Court in Pradeep Kumar Agrnwal v. Director, Local Bodies, U. P. IV, Lucknow and others, (1994) 1 UPLBEC 189. such a transfer order deserves to be quashed. However, in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4360 of 2007 (Mohd. . Masood Ahmad v. State of U. P. and others) decided on 19th September, 2007 wherein the Apex Court has approved and upheld the transfer order which has been made on the recommendation of the local MLA. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal, Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that at least till the decision of the representation made by the authority concerned the rights of the petitioner should be protected and he should not be compelled to proceed on the transfer till the same is decided. We do not find any ground for entertaining such a request of the petitioner when the petition itself ha been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal has no force and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal Dismissed. .;