MOHD KAFEEL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for quashing the order dt. July 31,1996 passed by Director, Land Acquisition, Board of Revenue, U. P., Lucknow transferring Land Acquisition Amins from one District to another District on administrative ground and in public interest The petitioner No. 1 Mohd. Kafeel who was working in the office of Additional Land Acquisition Officer, Lucknow has been transferred to the office of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Varanasi while petitioner No. 2 Muneer who was working in the office of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sultanpur has been transferred to the office of Additional Land Acquisition Office, Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow.

(2.) Learned counsel has assailed the transfer order on the ground that the appointing authority for the Land Acquisition Amins is the Collector of the District and as such there is a district cadre for such class of employees and consequently they cannot be transferred out of the Distt. in which they were appointed. It is urged that in absence of any centralised cadre of Land Acquisition Amins they can not be tranferred outside the district and the impugned order of transfer passed by the Director is not only illegal but is also without any authority of law. Learned counsel has referred to certain Government Orders which had been issued in this regard in May, 1986 and also to en order passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petitions No. 2189 of 1989 and No. 15723 of 1991 which had been filed challenging the order of the High Court by which the writ petitions filed by the Land Acquisition Amins against the order of transfers had been dismissed.

(3.) In exercise of power6 conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution, the Governor has made the U.P. Land Acquisition (Revenue Department) Amins Service Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) which were published on July 14, 1993. The Notification mentions that the same would operate in supersession of all existing Rules and Orders on the subject. The controversy has, therefore, to be examined in the light of the provisions of Rules. Rule 3 gives the definitions and sub-rule (a) defines an "appointing authority" and it means Collector of the district concerned. Sub-rule (e) defines 'member of service, and it means a person substantively appointed under the Rules or the rules and orders in force prior to commencement of the Rules to a post in the cadre of the service. Under sub-rule (d) 'Director' means Director. Land Acquisition appointed as such by the Government and under sub-rule (f) 'Service' means the U.P. Land Acquisition (Revenue Department) Amins Service, Part II of the Rules deals with cadre and Rule 4 (1) provides that the strength of the service shall be such as may be determined by the Government from time to time. Sub-rule (2) of this Rule provides that the strength of the service, until orders varying the same are passed under sub-rule (1), shall be 633, consisting of 291 permanent posts and 342 temporary posts. 'Cadre' has been defined in Rule 4 of Chapter II of I Fundamental Rules which were made by the Governor of U. P. in exercise of powers conferred by Section 241 (2) (b) of Government of India Act, 1935 and it means the strength of a service or part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit. Rule 4, therefore, shows that there is only one cadre of the Land Acquisition Amins for the whole of State consisting of permanent and temporary posts and not a district cadre as contended by the petitioners. All the Amins working in different districts of the State constitute one unit. In case, there had been a district cadre of Land Acquisition Amins, Rule 4 would have specifically mentioned the number of posts sanctioned for each district as in terms of the definition of the word 'cadre', the same would have constituted a separate unit.