JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. The petitioner was transferred by an order dated 6-8-1997 from Hastinapur to Meerut on her request, which is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, By an order dated 15-9-1997 petitioner has been transferred from Meerut to Daurala in order to accomodate one Smt. Kamlesh Singh at Meerut from Daurala. The impugned order of transfer contained in Annexure-5 does not mention as to whether the said transfer order has not been issued on administrative necesity or otherwise. The petitioner had been transferred on 6-8-1997 on her own request to Meerut. Nothing has been disclosed as to why the respondent has transferred the petitioner again when she had joined at Meerut only 8-8-1997 within short span of time. Mr. Vivek Kumar Birla, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the order contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, dated 4-8-1997. Relying on the said order Mr. Birla contends that the petitioner could not be transferred from Meerut to Daurala without the approval of the District Magistrate in view of the order dated 4-8-1997. By reasons thereof the said transfer order is void. Mr. Birala, learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on the said order dated 4-8-1997, an english translation whereof has been furnished by Mr. Birla learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the correctness of the said translation. The said order on which the petitioner relies, is quoted herein below :
"BAL VIKAS SEWA EVAM PUSHTAHAR NIDESHALAYA UTTAR PRADESH letter No. 61/133/Ba. Vi. Pari/Estt. 2-97-99 Dated Lucknow 4th August, 1997.
All District Programme Officer/ Child Development Project Officer (Incharge) Uttar Pradesh.
2. Please refer to Directorate Circular letter No. C-130/510-3381/Estha-3/Ba-Vi-Pari. dated 5th July, 1997. By means of the aforesaid letter all the powers have been withdrawn by cancelling the decentralisation of administrative powers at District level as provided by the circular letter No. C-78/Estha./Ba. Vi. Pari/95-96 dated 3rd June, 1996. Consequent upon the withdrawl of such powers queries are being raised by some district level officers regarding posting of officers/employees in Projects, transferred from the Directorate level to Districts.
3. It is, therefore, hereby clarified that officers/employees transferred from Directorate to Districts can be posted, with approval of the District Magistrate, against post lying vacant in child Developments Projects being carried on in the district. Apart from already transferred Officer/Employees in transfer year 1997 no officer/employees who is already working at a place shall be transferred at District/Regional.
Please ensure strict compliance of the aforesaid orders.
Sd/-
(Dr. Lalit Verma) Director
4. Learned Standing Counsel on the ether hand contends, that the said circular does not help the petitioner, on the plain reading of the said circular, I find that this contention has some substance.
5. It appears that a question was raised by some District level Officer relating to posting of officer in the projects transferred from the directorate level to the district level. In view of the cancellation of the decentralisation, the said question has been sought to be clarified in the said letter. Those clarifications relates to the question raised for posting of officer from directorate level to district level. It has no nexus with the transfer of officers who are posted in the district level having been transferred from directorate level. The said order clarifies that the approval of the District Magistrate against vacant post in the district level persons transferred from the directorate level may be posted. However, exception has been made that apart from the person already transferred, no officer already working at the place shall be transferred from directorate level to district level in the transfer year 1997. Those clarifications relates to the question raised essentially with transfer from directorate level to district level. This does not apply to the case of the petitioner. This applies only in cases of transfer from directorate level to district level and not to those who are in the district itself. However, as interpreted above the said order does not include the petitioner who was posted in the district and was sought to be transferred in the district level. Therefore, I am unable to agree with Mr. Biral's contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner on the said point.
6. The fact remains that the petitioner having been transferred on her own request only 6-8-1997 she could not have been transferred from Meerut except an administrative reason. But the order contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition shows that the said order was not being made on administrative ground. The allegations that the petitioner was transferred in order to accommodate Smt. Kamlesh Singh appears to be of some substance.
7. Learned Counsels for the parties contend that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending and justice would be better served if the same is disposed of.
8. After having heard the respective counsel's the writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:
9. The petitioner shall be at liberty to make a representation before the concerned respondent within three weeks from the date. A copy of the said representation is to be served on Smt. Kamlesh Singh within the same period. If such representation is made as above within time the respondent shall decide and dispose of the the same in accordance with law after giving opportunity to Smt. Kamlesh Singh to submit her objections, if any, having regard to the order dated 6-8-1997 preferably within two months from the date such representation is presented. In case the decision is negative, the same should contain reasons and be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks from the such decision.
10. The impugned order, which is contained in Annexure-5 shall be subject to the result of the decision in the representation. Till two weeks after communication of the decision on the representation to the petitioner, the petitioner shall not be relieved from Meerut, if she has not already been relieved.