JUDGMENT R.A. Sharma, J.
1. Petitioner, who claims to be an Assistant Secretary, Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Munderwa, district Basti, has filed this writ petition, challenging the order of his transfer dated 13.6.1997 passed by Sachiv, Rajya Ganna Sewa Pradhikaran, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (Respondent No. 1).
2. The sole submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there is no provision in the Rules and Regulations for transfer of the Secretary and Assistant Secretary and, therefore, the Central Cane Authority had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. In support of his contention the learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench case in Rajpal Singh v. District Cane Authority, Writ Petition No. 9613 of 1978, decided on 3.4.1979.
3. We have heard Sri Govind Saran, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondents.
4. In para 3 of the petition the petitioner has stated that his services are governed by the U.P. Cane Cooperative Services Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations'). Regulations 60 and 61, which are reproduced below, provide for transfer of the employees of Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti :
"60. The transfer of various categories of staff are classified as below :
1. From one Cane Union to another outside the district.
2. From one Cane Union to another within the same district.
61. Except the staff mentioned in regulation No. 35 (2) whose transfer within the district or outside the district shall be made by the Federation, the Recruiting and Appointing Authorities shall be competent to transfer all other staff of the Cane Union within their respective jurisdiction. However, transfers of fourth class staff excluding Ganna Gram Sewaks shall not be made unless there are special reasons justifying their transfer. Transfer of staff outside the jurisdiction of the Recruiting and Appointing Authority will be made by the District Committee or the Cane Unions' Federation as the case may be."
5. According to the said regulation an Assistant Secretary can be transferred by Respondent No. 1. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the impugned order.
6. It is true that the Division Bench in Raj Pal's case (supra), has held that the employees of the Cane Society can not be transferred. But form the perusal of the judgment it is clear that Regulation 61 which confers the power to transfer the employees of the Cane Cooperative Union was not considered and, therefore, said judgment is not binding being per incuriam having seen passed in ignorance of the relevant statutory provision. In this connection reference may be made to the case of State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., and Anr., reported in (1991) 4 SCC 139, wherein it been laid down that :
" 'Incuria' literally means 'carelessness'. In practice per incuriam appears to mean per ignorance. English Courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. The 'quotable in law' is avoided and ignored if it is rendered, 'in ignoratiurn of a statute or other binding authority.' (Young v. Bristol Aeroplance Co. Ltd.). Same has been accepted, approved and adopted by this Court while interpreting Article 141 of the Constitution which embodies the doctrine of precedents as a matter of law. In Jaisri Sahu v. Rajdewan Dubey, this Court while pointing out the procedure to be followed when conflicting decisions are placed before a bench extracted a passage from Halsbury's Laws of England incorporating one of the exceptions when the decision of an Appellate Court is not binding."
7. For the reasons given above this petition lacks merits and is dismissed.