D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention while challenging the order of transfer dated 8th February, 1999 contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, contends that the petitioner has been transferred by virtue of an order passed by the Minister of Basic Education, who is an authority outside the Board and cannot have passed the impugned order of transfer. The order of transfer has since been passed by the Board only at the dictate of the Minister. which is wholly impermissible. Neither a Minister could intervene nor the Secretary is bound by such dictates. According to him, though the order of transfer has been dressed as an independent order of transfer, but was prompted by the dictate of the Minister. According to him. there was no application of mind on the part of the Secretary of the Board in Issuing the order of transfer. He then contends that such transfer order could be passed only within the district and the petitioner having been appointed by the District Basic Education Officer and his seniority is being counted on the basis of the district itself, there was no scope for transferring him outside the district. Such transfer would affect the petitioner's service condition in that it will affect his seniority in other district and he will not be eligible to future promotions outside the district. He next contends that it appears from the counter-affidavit that such transfer has been affected by reason of certain allegations against the petitioner, which is two years' old. Originally one order of transfer was issued against him on the basis of some allegations and, thereafter, the said order was recalled. There cannot be revival of the same order once again. On these grounds, he assails the order of transfer.
(2.) Mr. N. D. Rai, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand points out from Annexure-C.A. 5, which is dated 25th July. 1996 that Instructions have been issued with regard to the fixation of seniority of persons transferred from one district to another district on administrative exigencies or on own request. Thus. It does not appear from the materials available before this Court that transfer of a staff from one district to another is prohibited. He also contends that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. which necesslated his transfer.
(3.) I have heard both the learned counsel at length.;