RAM NARESH VISHKARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Prafull Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The order under appeal is an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 23.7.1996, by means of which, the appellant's challenge to his transfer order, has been rejected. The appellant was appointed substantively on the post of investigator/computer in Primary Health Centre, Bankeyganj, Kheri, but at the time of passing the impugned order, he was working at the Head Quarter in the office of Chief Medical Officer, Kheri. The Chief Medical Officer passed an order dated 9.7,1997, by means of which he was required to join at the place of substantive appointment, where the post was lying vacant. This order has been issued in pursuance of directive issued by the Director Family Welfare, vide circular dated 28.8.1993 and the Director General, vide circular dated 25.8.1995. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that that the learned Single Judge did not take into account that the appointing authority of the appellant was the Director, Family Welfare, therefore, the order was passed by an incompetent authority, which order can not be directed to be complied with. The submission is that learned Single Judge did not address on the said point, though, it finds mention in the order passed. In support of his submission, he has drawn the attention of this Court towards the Rule known as U.P. Family Welfare Statistical ( Group-C) Service Rules, 1993, where the term of appointing authority has been defined in Clause 3(1), which is as under: "Appointing authority" means Director Family Welfare Uttar Pradesh". Learned counsel for the State Shri Praful Kumar has drawn our attention towards two letters i.e. Circular issued on 28.8.1993 by the Director, Family Welfare, U.P. Lucknow and Circular issued on 25.8.1995 by Director General, Medical and Health, U. P. A perusal of two circulars reveals that the investigator cum computer, who were appointed substantively against posts in Primary Health Centre, were being posted at different places and whenever they were required to join on their place of substantive appointment, they challenge the said order saying that they have right to continue at different places. Considering the aforesaid facts, it was directed that all those investigator/computer, who were appointed substantively against a post in the Primary Health Centre, they be allowed to continue on the post of their substantive appointment but in case they are to be posted somewhere outside the said place, necessary approval may be taken. It is not in dispute and rather it is admitted that the appointment of the appellant was made substantively against the post in the Primary Health Centre, Bankeyganj. By the impugned order, the Chief Medical Officer under the direction of the Director, Family Welfare and Director General, Medical and Health has required the appellant to go and join at his place of substantive appointment and for that purpose he has used the word 'adjustment' for posting him at the place of substantive appointment. We, thus, do not find that any prejudice has been caused to the appellant by the impugned order, he having no right to continue at the place other than Primary Health Centre, Bankeyganj, Kheri. The special appeal, thus, has no force and is, accordingly, dismissed.