- (1.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel and the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4.
(2.) IT is not denied that the petitioner, after selection by the U. P. Public Service Commission, joined on 12. 6. 1997, and underwent requisite training at the Head Quarter of Transport Commissioner, and thereafter at the U. P. Administrative Acad emy, Nainital. After completion of his training, the petitioner was granted regular posting, and he joined his duties as Goods Tax/passenger Tax Officer in the Office of Regional Transport Officer, Bareilly and was continuing in that service when the impugned orders dated 23. 10. 1998 and 21. 12. 1999 issued by the State Government (Annexures 2 and 5 to the writ petition) and the order dated 2. 2. 2000 issued by the Transport Commissioner, U. P. Lucknow (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) were passed. By the aforesaid impugned orders, passed after more than two years of the petitioner's working in the Transport Department of the U. P. Government, he was asked to change the service cadre and was directed to join the State Civil Service as Treasury Officer/accounts Officers which is a distinct and separate service cadre under the said State Government. This action has been sought to be justified by the respondents under the name of reshuffling. IT is submitted by the respondents that this reshuffling is done according to the choice given by the candidate at the time of their selection by the Commission and because of the situation created by the reason of non-joining or resignation of certain candidates which requires readjustment of the merit-list and the choice of the candidates. The submissions from the side of the respondents are contrary to the basic law. Once a civil servant joins his post under the Government, even during the period of probation, Article 311 of the Constitution of India starts applying and the protection recommended by the Article become available. A Government servant acquires the right to the post and he cannot be removed from that post, whether by reason of alleged reshuffling or other reason short of improper performance of duty, in case of probationers, or misconduct in case of confirmed employees.
(3.) THE petitioner in this writ petition claims that he is not willing to move out of cadre of Transport Department of the State Government and it is not the case of the respondents that there is any short- coming in the performance of his duties by the petitioner, much less any misconduct. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be moved out of the service cadre of the Transport Department against his will.;