- (1.) THE petitioner, holding the post of District Manager in U. P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation); challenges the order dated 22. 8. 2007 passed by the State and the order dated 23. 8. 2007 passed by the Managing Director of the Corpora tion.
(2.) BY means of order dated 22. 8. 2007 the State Government directed the Managing Director to cancel the transfer of the petitioner posting her at Hardoi and consequently the order dated 23. 8. 2007 has been passed by the Managing Director. The aforesaid orders have been challenged on the ground that for no justi fiable reason, merely under political influence of the Minister of another depart ment, respondent No. 4 has been brought back to Hardoi though there are seri ous complaints against his working at that place for which enquiry is under contemplation. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was transferred to Hardoi vide order dated 30. 7. 2007 for working as District Manager, where she joined on 31. 7, 2007; but on 2. 8. 2007, Sri Abdul Mannan State Minister for Krishi, Videsh Vyapar Evam Krishi Niryat, Government of Uttar Pradesh wrote a letter to Sri Ram Prasad Chaudhary Minister for Food and Civil Supplies Government of Uttar Pradesh, requesting him that the respondent No. 4, who was working as officiating/lneharge District Manager had been performing his duties to utmost satisfaction and that there was no complaint against him to any party office bear ers or public representatives and, therefore, his transfer be cancelled and he be allowed to continue at Harder. On this letter on that very date, the Minister for Food and Civil Supplies directed the Managing Director to comply with the re quest made by the aforesaid Minister. The Managing Director in turn on that very date informed the Principal Secretary Food and Civil Supplies in writing saying that in view of the letter written by the State Minister for Krishi Videsh Vyapar Evarn Krishi Niryat to the Minister for Food and Civil Supplies he has been asked vide letter dated 2. 8. 2007, to comply with the directive issued therein namely to cancel the transfer order of the respondent No. 4, it is to be informed that against Arun Kumar Agarwal serious complaints have been received about irregularities committed by him when he was posted at Hardoi and departmental proceedings are pending and that his transfer frorn Hardoi was effected because of administra tive reasons on the directive issued by the Minister concerned, who had directed for his transfer on receiving complaints and since the petitioner, Smt. Rakesh had already joined at Hardoi therefore, decision in this regard be taken at the State Government level. The Managing Director thus expressed his disinclination to transfer the respondent No. 4, Arun Kumar Agarwal back to Hardoi because of serious com plaints and for the fact that disciplinary proceedings were pending against him but despite the aforesaid information being sent to the State Government, the Deputy Secretary to the State Government again wrote to the Managing Director on 22. 8. 2007 saying that in view of his letter dated 3. 8. 2007, he has been di rected to convey that transfer order of Arun Kumar Agarwal be cancelled. In view of the aforesaid directive issued by the State Government, the order cancelling the transfer has been passed by the Managing Director on 23. 8. 2007. The concellation order was also given effect to, and the petitioner has joined at Lucknow and respondent No. 4 was allowed to continue at Hardoi.
(3.) THE record was produced by the State and it is not in doubt, rather it is admitted, both from the pleadings of the parties and also from record, that the respondent No. 4, who was substantively appointed Commercial Inspector i. e. a post lower in rank than the post of District Manager was allowed to discharge the functions of higher post while he was posted at Hardoi and in view of information given by the Managing Director in Vidhan Parishad and the recommendations made by the State Government the posting on the post of District Manager and other offices was to be done on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit and that the petitioner/was a regularly appointed District Manager whereas re spondent No. 4 was only a Commercial Manager. The petitioner's posting on the post of District Manager was thus otherwise also could not have been interfered with as in district Hardoi, the workof the said post was being looked after by a Commercial Manager, namely, respondent No, 4 and there cannot be any reason for keeping the said higher post vacant in the presence of the District Manager (petitioner) being available, just to give charge of the higher post to a person holding a lower post.;