S.K.PHAUJDAR, J. - (1.) IN the above writ petitions controversy over a single subject matter is in question and accordingly these two writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by the present order.
(2.) SHRI Sita Ram Yadav, petitioner, in Writ Petition No. 26066 of 1996 had prayed for quashing an order dated 22-7-96 (An-nexure No. 2 to the writ petition), the order having been passed by the Commissioner Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur, (respon­dent No. 3 in the writ petition). It was stated in this writ petition that the petitioner had been an employee of the Nagar Panchayat at Salempur district Deoria. His services were covered under the Town .Area Centralized Services Rules, 1976, as amended from time to time. His initial appointment was made by the Government as a Buxi Secretary, a post now designated as Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat. He had been working as the Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat and was transferred by respon­dent No. 3 by his order dated 22-7-96 from Salempur district Deoria to Anand Nagar in the district of Maharajganj. It was stated that the Government being the appointing authority for the petitioner the power of transfer and suspension of the petitioner lay with the Director of Local Bodies and the Commissioner of Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur, had no authority to record the transfer order. Reference was made to a Government Order dated 17-5-96 to say that the transfer of an employee was to be made only after completion of serving the Nagar Panchayat for five years. It was the case of the petitioner that he came to Nagar Panchayat, Salempur, only in the year, 1994and the present transfer was violative of the Government Order. It was further averred that the children of the petitioner were studying at salempur and a mid term trans­fer would have hampered their studies. The petitioner made a representation before the Director of Local Bodies on 25-7-96 which was not decided. Upon this writ petition an order was passed on 27-8-96 disposing of the matter finally with a direction to the Director of Local Bodies U. P. (respondent No. 2) to decide the representation of the petitioner with a particular time frame and the order dated 22.7.96 was kept in abeyance till such decision.
(3.) THIS order dated 27-8-96 was chal­lenged by Madhav Sharan (the petitioner in the connected with writ petition) in special Appeal No. 691 of 1996 on the ground that the appellant, Madhav Sharan, was trans­ferred from Anandnagar to Salempur by the same order by which Sita Ram Yadav was transferred from Salempur to Anand Nagar. It was stated that Madhav Sharan should have been made a party in the writ petition and it was further pleaded that before the order dated 27-8-96 was recorded in the Writ Petition the transfer order had already been given effect to. The Division Bench allowed special Appeal No. 691 of 1996 by its order dated 17-9-96 and directed that Madhav Sharan be impleaded as an op­posite party in writ petition No. 26066 of 1996 and the matter be disposed of after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Accordingly, the matter was placed before this Court for fresh hearing and Madhav Sharan was made a party to the writ petition No. 26066 of 1996.;