JUDGMENT G.P. Mathur, J.
1. The challenge herein is an order dated 29.6.2002 passed by the State Government by which the petitioner who was posted as Chief Veterinary Officer has been transferred as Chief Technical Officer (Poultry), Kanpur.
2. Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior advocate has submitted that the State Government had issued a Government order on 4.5.1988 laying down the procedure for posting of members of U. P. Pashu Chikitsa Seva Class II. According to this Government order, the senior-most officer will be posted as Zila Pashu Dhan Adhikari while comparatively junior officer will be posted as Pariyojana Adhikari, Kukkut Kshetra Prabandhak. By a subsequent Government order dated 29.4.1991. the designations of various posts have been changed and Zila Pashu Dhan Adhikari has become Chief Veterinary Officer and Kukkut Vikas Adhikari has become Chief Technical Officer (Poultry). Thus, according to the learned counsel, the senior-most person has to be posted as Chief Veterinary Officer and a junior officer has to be posted as Chief Technical Officer (Poultry). Learned counsel has further submitted that currently Dr. R. P. Sachan is posted as Chief Veterinary Officer, Kanpur and he is junior to the petitioner as his name is at serial No. 799 while the name of the petitioner is at serial No. 732 in the seniority list. It is thus submitted that the transfer of the petitioner as Chief Technical Officer (Poultry), Kanpur, is illegal as a person junior to him is working there as Chief Veterinary Officer.
3. The State has filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is averred that the Governor of U. P. exercising powers under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution has framed Rules on 9.7.1998, known as U. P. Pashu Chikitsa (Samooha Kha) Seva Niyamawali, 1998 and it is clearly mentioned therein that the Rules are being framed in supersession of all previous rules and Government orders. Rule 2 provides that there will be a service known as Uttar Pradesh Pashu Chikitsa (Samooha Kha) Seva which consists of all posts of Class B level. The substantive post is that of Veterinary Officer. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 provides that the post of Chief Technical Officer and Chief Veterinary Officer shall be filled in by transfer of Veterinary Officer on the basis of seniority. The schedule to the Rule gives the cadre strength of Veterinary Officer, Chief Technical Officer and Chief Veterinary Officer and also their pay scale. The pay scale of all the three posts is exactly the same, namely, Rs. 8,000-275-13,500. Learned standing counsel has submitted that the substantive post is that of the Veterinary Officer and only senior members thereof are appointed as either Chief Veterinary Officer or Chief Technical Officer by transfer and they are all in the same pay scale and, therefore, it cannot be held that a Chief Veterinary Officer is in any way senior to a Chief Technical Officer.
4. In our opinion, the contention raised on the basis of the Government order dated 4.5.1988 which lays down that the senior-most officer shall be posted as Chief Veterinary Officer and a junior officer will be posted as Chief Technical Officer (Poultry) can have no application now in view of the clear recital in the rules to the effect that same have been framed in supersession of all previous Government Orders and the rules made in this regard. There is no dispute that the services of the petitioner are now governed by Uttar Pradesh Pashu Chikitsa (Samooha Kha) Seva Niyamawali, 1998. He, therefore, cannot take any support from the Government order dated 4.5.1988, in order to contend that senior-most Veterinary Officer should be posted as Chief Veterinary Officer and a junior officer could be posted as Chief Technical Officer. The rules do not make any such distinction now. In terms of the rules, the substantive post of all the members of the service is that of Veterinary Officer. Rule 5 (2) only provides that the posts of Chief Veterinary Officer and Chief Technical Officer shall be filled in from amongst Veterinary Officers by transfer made on the basis of seniority. The only effect of this provision is that Senior Veterinary Officers will hold the post of Chief Veterinary Officer or Chief Technical Officer but everyone is in the same pay scale. Therefore, the contention that in the same station, the senior member shall be posted as Chief Veterinary Officer and junior member will be posted as Chief Technical Officer (Poultry), cannot be accepted. The transfer order, therefore, cannot be challenged on that ground.
5. Shri Ashok Khare has next contended that the Chief Veterinary Officer writes the Annual Confidential Remarks of Chief Technical Officer (Poultry) and in that capacity, the petitioner had written the Annual Confidential Remarks of one Dr. Subhoranjan Bhattacharya and this shows that the Chief Technical Officer is subordinate to the Chief Veterinary Officer. This fact is specifically denied in para 16 of the counter-affidavit and tt is averred therein that Dr. Bhattacharya is only a Veterinary Officer and was not a Chief Technical Officer. It is further averred that posting as Chief Veterinary Officer and Chief Technical Officer has been done up to serial number 804 in the seniority list while Dr. Bhattacharya Is at serial number 1987. These facts conclusively establish that Dr. Bhattacharya is only a Veterinary Officer and in that capacity, his Annual Confidential Remarks were written by the petitioner. The petitioner has not placed any Government order or other material to substantiate his plea that Chief Veterinary Officer writes the Annual Confidential Remarks of Chief Technical Officer. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted.
6. Sri Khare has lastly contended that Chief Veterinary Officer is drawing and disbursing authority of the district and, therefore, he is of higher position to that of a Chief Technical Officer. This contention has also been denied in para 16 of the counter-affidavit and it stated therein that in law, one officer in a district is given power of drawing and disbursing officer and this power has been conferred upon the Chief Veterinary Officer by the order issued on 11.11.1998 by the Director, Animal Husbandry, U. P. This order provides that the Chief Veterinary Officer will be the drawing and disbursing authority for all subordinate staff. However, if the office of a Deputy Director of Animal Husbandry is existing in any district, he shall make appropriate arrangement for drawing and disbursing the salary of all such officers/staff which are not subordinate to Chief Veterinary Officer. That apart, the work of drawing and disbursing authority can always be assigned to anyone for the purpose of convenience and this by itself is not indication of the fact that he is in any way superior or higher than those, for whom he is acting as drawing and disbursing authority.
7. It may also be mentioned that after framing of the Rules, 1998, the position has completely altered and administration will face immense problems if the Government order dated 4.5.1988, is strictly adhered to. The posting of the doctors has to be done looking to their ability and competence and also their professional expertise. If the posting is done in accordance with the Government order dated 4.5.1988, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a person may get a post of which he has no expertise or experience resulting in immense damage to public interest.
8. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.