- (1.) HEARD Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Counsel for the appellants (in special appeal Nos. 1005 of 2008, 1006 of 2008, 1007 of 2008 and 1008 of 2008), Sri Ashok Pandey, learned Counsel for the appellants (in special appeal No. 971 of 2008), Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Counsel for the appellants (in special a appeal No. (631) of 2008), Sri N. S. Chahar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents (in all the special appeals ).
(2.) THIS bunch of special appeals, 6 in number, has been filed against the leading judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 1st Au gust, 2008, in writ petition No. 33059 of 2008 (Sunil Kumar Shukla and others v. state of U. P. and others), writ petition No. 32765 of 2008 (Rama Shanker Singh and others v. State of U. P. and others) writ petition No. Ashjque Ali and others v. State of U. P. and others ). Shall these writ petitions the challenge was to an order dated 27th June, 2008 passed by the Inspector General, Jail Administration and Reforms Services, U. P. Lucknow. The Hon'ble Single Judge has been pleased to dismiss the writ petitions. Other writ petitions giving rise to this bunch of special appeals have also been dismissed by the same Hon'ble Single Judge in terms of the judgment and order passed in writ petition No. 33059 of 2008 (Sunil Kumar Shukla and others v. State of U. P. and others ). Since the base facts and legal issues raised in all these special appeals are more or less identical, they have been heard together. All the Special Appeals are being decided by this common judgment. The facts on record of Special Appeal No. 1006 of 2008 are being noticed for the purposes of present judgment treating the same to be the leading case. The writ petitioners, who are appellants in this bunch of appeals, have " been working as Bandi Rakshak/warders in different jails within the State of Uttar Pradesh. They have been transferred order dated 27th June, 2008 issued by the Inspector General, Jail Administration and Reforms Services, U. P. Lucknow from one jail circle to another. It is against this order of transfer that aforesaid writ petitions were filed.
(3.) LEARNED Counsels for the appellants challenging the order dated 27th June, 2008 as also the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge submitted as follows : (1) All the writ petitioners were appointed in a particular jail circle and they could not have been transferred put of jail circle, in which they were so appointed. It is submitted that the advertisement for recruitment was issued circle-wise, they having been appointed only for a particular jail circle where they have been working, transfer out of circle is not permissible under law. (2) The transfer order has been passed transferring more than 80% of the jail warders of a particular jail. It is submitted that under para-980 of Chapter-XXXVII of U. P. Jail Manual, power has been conferred upon the Inspector General to transfer the Warders from one circle to another but such power is by way of an exception to the General Rules that warders are to remain in a circle, where they have been appointed. Para-979 contemplates the transfer within the same circle by the Jail Superintendent subject to the orders of the 9 Inspector-General. (3) The State Government has laid down the transfer policy for the year 2008 wide Government Order dated 15th May, 2008, the Inspector General, Jail Administration and Reforms Sonics, U. P. Lucknow has no authority or jurisdiction to lay down a different policy qua transfer of warders dated 4th June, 2008. Such power to lay down a policy for transfer of warders vests only with the State Government and not with the Inspector General. (4) The transfer orders of the appellants to different circles records that transfer is for a period of three years and their lien in the original circles is maintained. This clearly demonstrate that transfers are by way of deputation. Consent of the appellants has not been obtained before effecting such depu tation orders. (5) Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the appellants (in special appeal No. 971 of 2008) has further submitted that these appellants are intramural jail warders and they are not covered by paras- 979 and 980 of Chapter-XXXVII of U. P. Jail Manual. Learned Standing Counsel supporting the impugned order of transfer as well as the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, in reply, contended that the Inspector General has been conferred an authority under para-980 of the U. P. Jail Manual to transfer warders from one circle to another. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellants could be transferred out of circle by the Inspector General in exceptional cases only, is mis?onceived, as no such restriction has been provided under Para-980. It is submitted that although the appellants were recruited subsequent to selection made circle-wise, yet they can be transferred out of circle in view of Para-980. It is further submitted that under the policy laid down only those warders are being transferred out of circle, who have remained posted in a particular jail circle for 10-15 years. For stream lining the jail administration and for improving the control, management and superintendence in jails, a policy has been laid down for transfer of warders who have continued for more than a decade in a particular jail circle. With this object in mind, transfers have been affected, qua the petitioners in accordance with law. The Inspector General has power to issue general guidelines for regulating the transfer. It has been further submitted that transfer in the fact A of the case is not by way of deputation. Hence there was no occasion to obtain the consent of the appellants before passing the impugned order. Lastly it is submitted that similar writ petitions had been dismissed by Hon'ble Single Judge of the Lucknow Bench of this Court vice judgment and order dated 22nd July, 2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 4064 (S/s) of 2003 (Shitla Prasad Shukla and others v. state of U. P. and others ).;