Counsel for Appellant:- Ranjit Saxena Counsel for Respondents:- CSC, Shailendra Hon'ble Dr Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Chief Justice Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J The appellant was transferred on 15 July 2014 by the Engineer-in-Chief from the Barrage Construction Division, Kanpur to the Irrigation Division, Kanpur Dehat. On 1 August 2014, the Executive Engineer recommended the cancellation of the order of transfer. On 5 September 2014, the transfer was stayed until 31 May 2015 by the Engineer-in-Chief. On 30 June 2015, the order of transfer was cancelled by the Engineer-in-Chief. On 15 July 2015, the Engineer-in-Chief cancelled his earlier order dated 30 June 2015. The order dated 15 July 2015 specifically records that the cancellation of the order of transfer which was effected on 30 June 2015 was being withdrawn on the recommendation of the fourth respondent, who is a person by the name of Jagdish Singh Pal as the General Secretary of the Ministerial Association of the Irrigation Department of Uttar Pradesh. The writ petition before the learned Single Judge was filed in order to challenge the order dated 15 July 2015 of the Engineer-in-Chief and for a mandamus to the fifth respondent not to be guided by the directions and orders of the fourth respondent as a General Secretary of the Ministerial Association of the Irrigation Department.
While entertaining the writ petition on 11 August 2015, the learned Single Judge indicated that while ordinarily, the Court does not interfere with matters of transfer, the impugned order prima facie appears to be mala fide. On 1 October 2015, the appellant brought on the record a number of such requests made by the fourth respondent to the Executive Engineer for transfer of several employees and it was stated on affidavit that transfer orders are being passed on the direction of the fourth respondent who is running the Irrigation Department. The learned Single Judge referred to this in the order dated 1 October 2015 in the following terms:
"The petitioner has also brought on record a large number of letters/documents of the respondent no. 4, wherein the respondent no. 4 has issued requests/directions to the Executive Engineer in respect of transfer of several employees. It has been averred in paragraph-3 of the rejoinder affidavit that the record of the office of the Engineer-in-Chief shows that all the transfer orders are passed on the direction of Jagdish Singh Pal, the respondent no. 4, and he is running the irrigation department. In the impugned order itself it is mentioned that the order has been passed at the instance of Jagdish Singh Pal, the respondent no. 4."
Eventually, the Engineer-in-Chief filed an affidavit before the learned Single Judge dated 29 September 2015 containing the following statements:
"2. That the above noted Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 15.7.2015 annexed as Annexure no.11 to the aforesaid Writ Petition. However it is stated that since the order dated 15.07.2015 was passed due to certain inadvertence mistake and as such the said order dated 15.07.2015 has been recalled/cancelled by the answering respondent no.5 vide order dated 18.09.2015.
3. That earlier the order impugned in the Writ Petition dated 15.07.2015 was passed due to fault and mistake and the said mistake is not willful or deliberate. However the answering respondent no.5 undertakes that in future all the due diligence would be made while passing any kind of administrative order from his office.
4. That since the order impugned in the Writ Petition has already been recall/cancelled vide order dated 18.09.2015 and as such the present Writ Petition as become infructuous and the same is liable to be dismissed and the interim is also liable to be vacated."
The writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge as having become infructuous in view of the fact that on 18 September 2015 the order dated 15 July 2015 had been cancelled. The original petitioner is in appeal.
On 30 June 2015, the order transferring the appellant from the Barrage Construction Division to the Irrigation Division (From Kanpur to Kanpur Dehat) was cancelled. The order of the Engineer-in-Chief dated 15 July 2015 specifically records that it is at the behest of the fourth respondent that he was cancelling the earlier order dated 30 June 2015. The relevant part of the order dated 15 July 2015 reads as follows:
"Jh txnh'k flag iky] egkea=h] fefuLVhfj;y ,lksfl,'ku bfjxs'ku fMikVZesUV mRrj izns'k ds i= la[;k&[email protected],0b0fM0m0iz0] fnukWd% 2&7&2015 }kjk Jh tx/kkjh jke] ofj"B lgk;d] ds bl dk;kZy; ds Kki la[;k&[email protected]&4] fnukWd 30&6&2015 }kjk fuxZr vkns'k dks fujLr fd;s tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;s tkus ij lEe;d fopkjksijkUr bl dk;kZy; }kjk fuxZr vkns'k fnukWd 30&6&2015 dks ,rn~}kjk fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA"
This being the state of affairs of the Irrigation Department, it is evident that the power to transfer employees which is expected to be wielded in the interest of the administration and in public interest is being exercised virtually at the beck and call of the fourth respondent who is the General Secretary of the Ministerial Association of the Irrigation Department in Uttar Pradesh. That the order dated 15 July 2015 was at his behest is clear from a bare reading of the order of the Engineer-in-Chief which indicates that he was issuing the order at his behest. This is clear abdication of authority on the part of the Engineer-in-Chief. In fact, as the learned Single Judge noted in the interim order which was passed during the pendency of the writ petition on 1 October 2015, the appellant brought on the record several instances where the fourth respondent was virtually directing the authorities in regard to who should be transferred and the place to which an officer is to be transferred. The submission of the fifth respondent is that these were requests of the fourth respondent. Even if that be so, the point of the matter is that if a request is made, the decision to transfer an employee has to be taken by the competent authority and the competent authority alone in the interest of the administration and in public interest. These functions cannot be abdicated to the General Secretary of the Ministerial Staff Association. In fact, the affidavit which was filed by the Engineer-in-Chief before the learned Single Judge proceeded to accept that the order dated 15 July 2015 was "passed due to fault and mistake"; that it had been cancelled on 18 September 2015; and that the Engineer-in-Chief undertook that in future he would exercise all due diligence before issuing administrative orders. That the Engineer-in-Chief admitted the position and undertook to rectify the matter in future, speaks eloquently about the manner in which the department is being run.
Undoubtedly, after the order of 15 July 2015 was recalled on 18 September 2015, nothing survived in the first prayer of the writ petition. The second relief which was sought was that the Engineer-in-Chief should not be guided by the directions of the fourth respondent. In the background which has been noted above, it needs to be observed that in making transfers and postings, the competent authority must be guided by the exigencies of the administration and public interest. Abdicating these functions to a third party including the fourth respondent would clearly be impermissible in law.
We direct that a copy of this order be brought to the attention of the Principal Secretary in the Irrigation Department of the State Government for necessary compliance.
The special appeal is accordingly disposed. There shall be no order as to costs.