D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner alleges that he is the President of a recognised Union, namely U.P. Laghu Sinchai Awar Abhiyanta Sangh'. Relying on the transfer policy dated April 15, 1997, contained in Para-11 thereof, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that by reason of the guideline, the petitioner being District level President of the recognised Union, he can not be transferred within two years from the date of his election as President. Therefore, the order of transfer which is Annexure 'I' to the writ petition, dated June 17, 1997, cannot be given effect to, so far as the petitioner is concerned.
(2.) Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contends that the said policy being guideline has no binding force and therefore he cannot raise any legal right. He also relied on certain decisions.
(3.) In para 6 of the writ petition it has been stated that the petitioner is District President of a recognised union. The petitioner has annexed a resolution, by which he was so elected in An-nexure-2 to the writ petition. The writ petition was being heard for the last two days and was being adjourned, as there is no document to show either that the Union is a registered union or the same has been recognised by the employer, The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the Union has been duly recognised by the employer. The guideline itself applies to the District level President of a duly recognised Union. Unless this shows that the Union has been duly recognised, the said guideline cannot be attracted.;