- (1.) M. Katju, J. This petition furnishes a typical instance of a highly pernicious virus which has crept into the governance of this State, namely, the blatant and persistent abuse of the power of the transfer and post ing of government servants on political, caste, monetary or other extraneous con siderations instead of an administrative ground and in the public interest.
(2.) I have heard Sri. VK. Singh who was appointed as amicus curiae by the order of this Court dated 23-3- 97 to assist the petitioner, Sri Devendra Pratap who has appeared for respondent No. 4 and learned standing counsel. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 13-8- 96, Annexure 8 to the writ petition by which the petitioner's transfer from Gopiganj to Bhadohi was can celled. The petitioner was working as Attendant-Nurse-cum-Midwife in Community Health Centre, Gopiganj and she was trans ferred to Bhadohi by order dated 24-6-96, Annexure 1 to the petition. The petitioner joined at Bhadohi on 6-7-97 as stated in para 8 of the writ petition and she has also been paid salary at Community Health Centre, Bhadohi. She has alleged that her son who is a student of Class X is taking coaching class at Bhadohi. In para 11 of the writ petition it is stated that respondent No. 4 approached Smt. Phoolan Devi, Member of Parliament who got the transfer order dated 24-6-96 cancelled by the impugned order dated 13-8-96. A perusal of the order dated 13-8-96 shows that it has been mentioned there that the said order had been passed on the direction of Smt. Phoolan Devi, Mem ber of Parliament. The order states: Thus it is evident from the impugned order dated 13-8-96 itself that this orderwas passed on the direction of Smt. Phoolan Devi, Member of Parliament. In my opinion the impugned order is wholly arbitrary as it has been passed solely on the dictates of a politician (as the order expressly states) and not on any administra tive exigency. It is settled law that transfer orders have to be passed on administrative grounds and not on the dictates of a politician [vide Pawan Kumar Srivastava v. U. P State Electricity Board, 1995 (1) U. P. L. B. E. C. 414].
(3.) A large number of petitions by government servants are coming up before this Court challenging transfer orders and the time has now come when this subject has to be dealt with comprehensively. The traditional principle has been that this Court does not ordinarily interfere with transfer order, as transfer is an exigency of service. However, this principle was made for and can only apply to, an administration which is functioning normally and not when there is blatant and persistent abuse of the power of transfer.;