JUDGMENT B.S. Chauhan, J.
1. This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.05.2005, by which the writ petition of the present appellant against the impugned transfer order has been dismissed, though the petition of the respondent No. 5 has been allowed.
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that vide order dated 10.07.2004, Dharam Pal Singh, the respondent No. 5 was transferred from Agra to Etah. By the same transfer order, the present appellant was transferred from Etah to Jhansi on the post of Farm Superintendent. Appellant filed a writ petition before the Lucknow Bench of this Court challenging his transfer order from Etah to Jhansi dated 10.07.2004. However, the same stood dismissed as withdrawn. The appellant, then made a representation before the State Government and succeeded in getting the transfer order dated 10.07.2004 cancelled vide order dated 27.10.2004. On the basis of the siad order, it is submitted that the appellant tried to join at Etah but by that time, the respondent No. 5 had already joined. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 5 filed Writ Petition No. 47069 of 2004 challenging the order dated 27.10.2004 on the ground that the order dated 10.07.2004 had already been given effect to as he had joined at Etah on 3rd August, 2004. This Court, vide interim order dated 05.11.2004 stayed the operation of the order dated 27.10.2004. Subsequently, a fresh order dated 09.11.2004 was passed transferring the respondent No. 5 from Etah to Jhansi but it was also not given effect to. It was clarified vide order dated 09.02.2005 that the appellant as well as the respondent No. 5 would remain at Etah and both will get their salary but the charge and work would be done only by the appellant. The orders dated 09.11.2004 and 09.02.2005 were also challenged by the respondent No. 5 moving an amendment application in the said writ petition. The administration again vide order dated 05.03.2005 clarified that the appellant as well as the respondent No. 5 would stay at Etah and shall draw their salary but work would be done only by respondent No. 5. The appellant challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No. 23266 of 2005. Respondent No. 5 also filed Contempt Petition No. 5371 of 2005 raising the grievance of non-compliance of the order passed by this Court on 05.11.2004 and the said contempt petition was entertained by a detailed order dated 23.02.2005. Both the writ petitions were heard and disposed of by the learned Single Judge taking a view that once the earlier transfer order dated 10.07.2004 had been given effect to, there was no occasion for the State authorities to pass order dated 27.10.2004 nullifying the same as the transfer order stood exhausted. Hence this appeal.
3. The issue of transfer and posting has been considered time and again by the Apex Court and entire law has been settled by catena of decisions. It is entirely upon the competent authority to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is to be transferred from his present posting. Whether a transfer order is in the public interest or on administrative ground requires factual adjudication, which is not permissible to be made in a writ jurisdiction. Transfer is not merely an incident of service but a condition of service and is to be passed in public interest and for efficiency in public administration. No employee can claim a right to remain posted at a particular place or for a further period unless his appointment itself is made specifically on a non-transferable post. The writ Court cannot interfere against a transfer order unless shown as an outcome of mala fide exercise of power or in violation of statutory provisions. In absence of these two conditions, the transfer order cannot be a subject matter of judicial scrutiny. (Vide Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444; Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532; Union of India v. N.P. Thomas, AIR 1991 SC 1605; Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta, AIR 1992 SC 519; Chief Manager (Tel.) N.E. Telecom Circle v. Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee, AIR 1995 SC 813; State of U.P. v. Dr. V.N. Prasad, 1995 (Suppl) 2 SCC 151; Union of India and Ors. v. Ganesh Dan Singh, 1995 (Suppl) 3 SCC 214; N.K. Singh v. Union of India and Ors., (1994) 6 SCC 98; Abani Kante Ray v. State of Orissa, 1995 (Suppl) 4 SCC 169; State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal and Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1748; National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, (2001) 8 SCC 574; V. Jagannatha Rao v. State of A.P. and Ors., AIR 2002 SC 77; Public Service Tribunal Bar Association v. State of U.P. and Ors., AIR 2003 sc 1115; state of Rajasthan v. Anand Prakash Solanki, (2003) 7 SCC 403; State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, AIR 2004 SC 4121; State of U.P. v. Siya Ram, AIR 2004 SC 4165; Union of India v. Janardhan Debanath, (2004) 4 SCC 245).
4. An employee holding a transferable post cannot claim any vested right to work on a particular place as the transfer order does not affect any of his legal rights and Court cannot interfere, with a transfer/posting which is made in public interest or on administrative exigency. In Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atma Ram Sungomal Poshani, AIR 1989 SC 1433, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular Cadre of transferable posts from one place to the another is an incident of service. No Government servant or employee of public undertaking has legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to other is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration."
5. In Union of India v. H.N. Kirtania, AIR 1989 SC 1774, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: -
"Transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer order illegal on the ground of violation of statutory rules or on ground of malafide."
6. In view of the above, it is not possible for the writ Court to interfere against an impugned transfer order unless it is shown to have been passed in mala fide/colourable exercise of power or in violation of statutory provisions or it was not required in administrative exigency rather has been passed arbitrariy.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 placed a very heavy reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Natthi Lal v. Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and Ors., (1994) 2 UPLBEC 1030 wherein it has been held that once the transfer order has been executed, their remains nothing for the State to consider and the transfer order cannot be changed/modified or cancelled nor a fresh transfer order can be passed. The said judgment was delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court placing reliance upon earlier Division Bench judgments in Smt. Beena Tripathi v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1987 (5) Luck. Civil Derisions, 253; Writ Petition No. 2028 of 1985, (sic) Bahadur Singh v. Basic Shiksha Parishad and Ors. decided on 10.05.1985; and Writ Petition No. 2205 of 1985, Hans Raj and Anr. v. Basic Shiksha Parishad and Ors. decided on 20.05.2005, wherein it had been held that after the employee has joined the place to which he was transferred, it was not open to the government to cancel the transfer order.
8. It Is a very sorry state of affairs that the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 is not aware that the said judgment and order has been overruled by a Full Bench in Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad v. Natthi Lal, 1995 (2) UPLBEC 1128, wherein this Court has held that in view of the provisions of Section 21 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, if an authority has a power to transfer an employee, it has a power to re-transfer or cancel the transfer order and in such a situation, the writ Court has to keep its hands off unless it is proved that the transfer order is in violation of the statutory provisions or has been passed on mala fides. There is no bar for the authority to transfer an employee even if he has joined at the transferred place. The Full Bench placed reliance upon the earlier judgment of this Court in Suraj Narain v. The District Magistrate, Kanpur, 1958 AD 283, wherein while dealing with the powers of the Statutory Authority under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, it was observed as under:-
"No exception can be taken to the general proposition that the power in an administrative officer to pass an order includes the power to reconsider or cancel it."
9. The Full Bench explained the law observing as under: -
"We specifically hereby clarify that an order, even if it has been implemented, can be cancelled on other grounds too, including administrative considerations and exigencies of service. An order cancelling the order of transfer, after it has been implemented, would of course, be open to challenge for reasons akin to those on which an order of transfer may be questioned."
10. It is shocking that the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 has not made any attempt to find out as to whether the judgment referred and relied upon by him still holds the field. In State of Orissa v. Nalinikanta Muduli, AIR 2004 SC 4272, the Apex Court expressed its concern about the falling standard of bar and deprecated the practice of citing the overruled judgments observing as under -
"Members of the bar are officers of the Court. They have a bounden duty to assist the Court and not mislead it. Citing judgment of a Court which has been overruled by a larger Bench of the same High Court or this Court without disclosing the fact that it has been overruled is a matter of serious concern....All this shows that the matter was dealt with very casually.... It was certainly the duty of the Counsel...to bring to the notice of the Court that the decision relied upon by the petitioner before the High Court has been overruled by this Court. It was the duty of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the High Court not to cite an overruled judgment....We can only express our anguish at the falling standards of professional conduct."
11. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Saxena, AIR 1998 SC 925, the Hon'ble Apex Court examined the facts of a case where the employee had been transferred vide order dated 07.10.1995; the order was challenged before the High Court and the writ petition was dismissed on 16.10.1995; immediately thereafter, the transfer order dated 07.10.1995 after being implemented/executed, was recalled. This Court had taken a very serious view of the matter and initiated contempt proceedings against the State for disturbing the posting order duly approved by the Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after placing reliance upon large number of its earlier judgment, held that "interference by judicial review is justified only in cases of mala fides or infraction of any prospective claim or principle, or where career prospects remain unaffected and no detriment is caused to the concerned employee challenging the transfer order, challenge to the transfer order must be eschewed. The transfer, being an incident of service, is not to be interfered with by the Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary." The Court further observed as under:-
"The High Court had not and could not have taken over the administration of the State.... There was, therefore, no bar against the Government or appellant withdrawing, altering or modifying the order of transfer passed on 7.10.95.... The High Court was so much obsessed with that idea, it became over-anxious to see that its order, as understood by it, was carried out and the appellant, who had stayed the order of transfer dated 7.10.95, was punished." (Emphasis added).
12. Thus, it becomes abundantly clear from the aforesaid judgment that even if the transfer order has been given effect to, the employer has a power to recall the same and unless the allegations of mala fides are alleged or violation of the Rules are shown, the Writ Court should not generally interfere.
13. It is evident from the judgment and order impugned that the appellant is under suspension and the learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to deny the said factual position.
14. Be that as it may, it is astonishing that the so-called State Administration has been issuing directions time and again that on one post, two person shall be posted and they shall be paid their salary etc. We fail to understand as under what authority of law, such an order could have been passed and it is a case which requires thorough investigation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chinnasamy P.K. v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu and Ors., AIR 1988 SC 78, has laid down that it is most improper to allow a person to be paid salary and other benefits and take no work to him.
15. The question that also draws attention is as to whether salary to two persons can be ordered for being paid as against one post. A single post in our opinion cannot have a double occupancy simultaneously. One post can be occupied by only one person at a time. A post carries with it a designation and a financial burden on the State. There is no rule, brought to our notice, which may contemplate payment of salary to two persons simultaneously against one post. The word "Pay" has been defined in the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules, contained in Chapter II of Part III of Financial Handbook Volume 2, Part II to IV as follows:-
"21. Pay means amount drawn monthly by a Government servant as -
(i) the pay, other than special pay or pay granted in view of his personal qualifications, which has been Sanctioned for a post held by him substantively or in an officiating capacity, or to which he is entitled by reason of his position in a cadre."
16. A perusal of the first sentence clearly connotes "a" Government Servant granted pay for "a" post held by him substantively/officiating or by reason of his position in a cadre, Thus, the rules clearly define payment to "a" government servant against "a" post which conversely amounts to prohibiting payment to two persons against one post. The stand taken by the respondents of paying salary to two persons and taking work only from one is a clear defiance of logic and rules as well.
17. Thus, in view of the above, we dispose of this appeal with the following directions:-
(1) An officer not below the rank of Special Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow shall hold a full-fledged enquiry as under what circumstances, any officer of the State could pass an order that on one post two persons shall be posted and paid their salary and one of them shall not work, and would take appropriate action against the said officer who was responsible for passing such an illegal order.
(2) The reasoning given by the learned Single Judge is not supported by law. Therefore, the appeal succeeds to the extent indicated above. The judgment and order impugned dated 12.05.2005 is hereby set aside.
(3) As this seems to be a case where the parties are fighting for ego satisfaction and large number of writ petitions as well as contempt petition have been filed by the appellant as well as the respondent No. 5, making the Court a battle ground to achieve their purpose, it is desirable that both the officers be placed somewhere else.
(4) We request the so-called administration to transfer the appellant as was as the respondent No. 5 from district Etah to different districts forthwith.
18. A copy of this order be sent by the Registrar of this Court directly to Special Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow for compliance.