JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. The petitioner alleges that he is the President of a recognised Union, namely U.P. Laghu Sinchai Awar Abhiyanta Sangh'. Relying on the transfer policy dated April 15, 1997, contained in Para-11 thereof, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that by reason of the guideline, the petitioner being District level President of the recognised Union, he can not be transferred within two years from the date of his election as President. Therefore, the order of transfer which is Annexure 'I' to the writ petition, dated June 17, 1997, cannot be given effect to, so far as the petitioner is concerned.
2. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contends that the said policy being guideline has no binding force and therefore he cannot raise any legal right. He also relied on certain decisions.
3. In para 6 of the writ petition it has been stated that the petitioner is District President of a recognised union. The petitioner has annexed a resolution, by which he was so elected in An-nexure-2 to the writ petition. The writ petition was being heard for the last two days and was being adjourned, as there is no document to show either that the Union is a registered union or the same has been recognised by the employer, The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the Union has been duly recognised by the employer. The guideline itself applies to the District level President of a duly recognised Union. Unless this shows that the Union has been duly recognised, the said guideline cannot be attracted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of this Court in the case of Nathilal v. Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, U.P. 1994(69) FLR 497. In the said case it was held that the transfer at the dictate of Ministry cannot be sustained. In the said case the learned Judge had relied on the decision in the case of Mrs. Shilpi Rose v. State of Bihar (1991 - II -LLJ-591) (SC), wherein it was held atp.592:
"The Court should not interfere with the transfer orders which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or other. He is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer order issued by the competent authority does not violate any of his legal rights. Even if the transfer order is, passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, Court ordinarily should not interfere with the orders, instead affected party should approach the higher authority in the departments."
In the said case it was not question of transfer of office bearers of an Association that was involved. Thus even on facts the present case is distinguishable.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied on a decision in the case of Smt. Deepa Vashisthav. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996(73) FLR 946 (SC), wherein it has been held that the order of transfer if violative of the policy or the guideline, in that event the same should be adhered to. In the said case it was question of transfer of both husband and wife to different places. In the said case also the question of transfer of an office bearer was not involved. But the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the principle that the guidelines are to be followed .
6. Learned Standing counsel on the other hand relied on the decision in the case of Union of India v. S.L.Abbas (1993-II-LLJ- 626), wherein the Apex Court has held that the Gov-ernment instructions with regard to transfer are mere guidelines without statutory force and the Court or the Tribunal cannot interfere with that order of transfer unless the transfer order is passed mala fide or where it is made in violation of statutory provisions. He also relied on the decision in the case of Mahavir Shah v. Conservator of Forest, Tehri-Garhwal 1997 (30) ALR 325 (Alld.), wherein it has been held as under:
"7. This Court has examined the scope of interference with the transfer order in detail in Rajdeo Singh v. Chief Engineer, U.P. Jal Nigdm and held that it was entirely up to the employer to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is to he transferred from his present posting. It has also been held that the Court cannot interfere with the transfer order unless it is passed in violation of statutory rules or on the ground of mala fide. This has been the consistent view of the Apex Court and reliance can safely be placed on various judgments of the Supreme Court i.e. Union of India v. S.L.Abbas, Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, Union of India v. N.P.Thomas, Chief General Manager (Tel) N.E.Telecom Circle and Anr. v. Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee, State of U. P. v. V.N.Prasad, Union of India and Ors. v. Ganesh Das Singh, M K. Singh v. Union of India and Abni Kama Ray v. State of Orissa."
7. After having discussed the relevant decisions in the said cases the Division Bench of this Court had come to a conclusion that unless transfer order issued by the competent authority violates any of his legal right, the Government servant holding transferred post cannot have vested right to remain at a particular place. Reliance was also placed in the case of Smt. Deepa Vashistha v. State of U.P. (Supra) and was also considered in the said case. It has also taken into account the decision in the case of Band of India v. Jagjit Mohan Singh AIR 1991 SC 519, as well as decision in the case of Rampati Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 (2) LBCER 96 All., and various other decisions on the question.
8. Learned Standing counsel also relied on an unreported judgment in the case of Ram Murat Prasad v. State of U.P., in Special Appeal No. 262 of 1992, disposed of on August 18, 1992 where this Court had refused to interfere in such transfer where the petitioner had claimed to be President of an Association.
9. Following the aforesaid decisions thus, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of transfer, in the present case. The writ petition therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will be however, no order as to COStS.
10. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within a week.