1. Heard Sri Vivek Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.
2. The petitioner has challenged the transfer order dated 12.07.2019 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from District Kheri to District Kannauj. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a perusal of the impugned transfer order will itself indicate that the petitioner as indicated in the order itself is a handicapped person. He further submits that in view of the admitted situation that the petitioner is a handicapped person he would therefore come within the clause of exemption under Paragraph No. 11(v) of the Transfer Policy/Government Order dated 29.03.2018 and therefore, the petitioner was not required to be transferred in the routine manner.
3. The State counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has submitted that the order dated 29.03.2018 which is the transfer policy of the Government is only in the nature of guidelines and is not mandatory in nature. He further submits that in view thereof, the petitioner can be transferred in the exigencies of service particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner had earlier also been transferred from one District to another where he has joined.
4. A perusal of the impugned transfer order definitely indicates the fact that the opposite parties themselves have indicated the petitioner to be a handicapped person. A certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Allahabad annexed as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition indicates that the petitioner is handicapped to the extent of 70 percent. While it is true that the transfer policy of the Government is in the nature of a guideline but nonetheless Paragraph 11(v) definitely exempts handicapped persons from routine transfers to be effected on administrative exigencies. Once the Government has itself indicated certain provisions in the transfer policy, it would definitely be bound by the orders issued by itself. Deviation from the transfer policy can definitely be effected by the State Government but for reasons to be recorded for such deviation. Once the transfer policy itself exempts for certain class of people, this Court is of the view that such exemptions would definitely be binding upon the Government itself and as indicated hereinabove deviation from the same can be effected only for specific reasons to be recorded as to why such exemption is not being granted to the person concerned.
5. In view of the aforesaid that the opposite parties themselves have indicated the petitioner to be a handicapped which would definitely fall within the purview of Paragraph No.11(v) of the order dated 29.03.2018, the impugned transfer order dated 12.07.2019 so far as it relates to the petitioner is quashed at the admission stage itself granting liberty to the concerned opposite party to pass fresh orders pertaining to the petitioner in view of the Paragraph No.11(v) of the order dated 29.03.2018.
6. In view of the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Ashok Gupta