- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. The petitioner has been transferred by an order dated 6th August, 1997 from Lalitpur to Kanpur Dehat on administrative ground.
(2.) IT is alleged that the order of trans fer was effected by reason of a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 4. The second ground on which the order impugned is being assailed is that it is a mid academic session transfer. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Coun sel, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order in as much as there is nothing reflected in the order that it is being effected on account of personal dispute of petitioner with respondent No. 4. The order of transfer has been issued on administrative ground. Rule 17 of the U. P. Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955, provides the power of transfer to the High Court from one Judgeship to another Judgeship. Learned Counsel for the petitioner very fairly has not disputed the authority to transfer, but he relies on two decisions of this Court, one in support of his contention that in mid academic session transfer cannot be made. The said decision is in the case of Balbir Singh v. Director of Animal Husbandary and others, 1996 (1) UPLBEC 353. If the transfers are made for administrative reasons, the said decision is not an absolute bar in the mat ters of transfer. If the administrative ex igencies so require, such transfer can be made and the question of transfer during mid academic session cannot stand in the way. The other decision cited by learned Counsel for petitioner is in the case of Smt. Deepa Vashishtha v. State of U. P. and others, 1996 (1) UPLBEC 54, which also does not help the case of the petitioner because the said question has also been considered by this Court in the case of Mahavir Shah v. Conservator of Forest, Tehri Garwal, 1997 (30) ALR 325 (Alld) and the apex Court in Union of India v. S. L. Abbas, 1993 (3) FLR 93 (SC) and it has been held that the guidelines do not have statutory or binding force. But in the present case, there is no guideline or Rules preventing such transfer. Consequently, the decision cited by the learned Counsel for petitioner is also of no help to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned transfer order. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .;