JUDGMENT S.C. Mathur, J. - This petition is directed against the Collectors order dated 28-7-1988 Annexure No. 4 whereby the petitioners who are holding the post of Lekhpal have been transferred from one Tahsil of District Faizabad to another Tahsil of the same district. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of transfer has been passed by the Collector, Faizabad on the basis of the order dated 19-10-1978 issued by the Board of Revenue. In the said order Board of Revenue has provided that those Lekhpais who have stayed at their places of posting for ten years or more, may be transferred from their present places of posting. Learned counsel has submitted that the power of transfer has been conferred under the statutory provision upon the Collector and, therefore, the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to issue the said order. The statutory provision upon which reliance has been placed is Rule 21 of the U.P. Lekhpal Service Rules, 1958. Rule 21 provides that the Collector may at his discretion, transfer a Lekhpal from one halqa to another within the district. It does not thereby take away the power of the Board of Revenue to issue administrative directions to the Collector. The transfer is primarily an administrative matter. Accordingly we are unable to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Boards order is in conflict with Rule 21 of the U.P. Lekhpal Service Rules. 3. The next submission of the learned counsel is that the Collector has wrongly implemented the order of the Board of Revenue in respect of some of the petitioners. It is pointed out that petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 has not completed the period of ten years at their present places of positing and yet they have also been transferred. The order of the Board of Revenue does not say that those who have not completed the period of ten years cannot be transferred. It only requires that those who have already completed that period must be transferred. Accordingly the Collector cannot be said to have violated the Boards order when he passed the transfer orders in respect of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 also. 4. It only requires that those who have already completed that period must be transferred. Accordingly the Collector cannot be said to have violated the Boards order when he passed the transfer orders in respect of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 also. 4. It is next contended that the order of the Board of Revenue is in conflict with the Government Orders dated 30-5-1977 and 4-10-1979 copies thereof have been filed as Annexures Nos. 1 and 2. We do not find any conflict between these Government Orders and the order of the Board of Revenue. Para 8 of Annexure No. 1 provides that Class III and IV employees can be posted anywhere in the Division except their places of residence. It further provides that Class I and Class II officers may be posted throughout the State except their own districts. In Government Order Annexure No. 2 clarification has been given regarding places of residence. 5. Altogether we do not find any legal error in the order of the Collector, district Faizabad. The petitioners also do not suffer substantial injury by the impugned order of transfer so as to entitled them to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In view of the above the petition lacks merit and is here by dismissed in 7. Immediately after the above order had been dictated, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for a certificate of fitness for filing an appeal before their Lordships of the Supreme Court. Our judgment does not raise any substantial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by their Lordships. Accordingly the certificate prayed for is refused.