JUDGMENT S. C. Mathur, J. - This petition pertains to transfer of a public servant. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order, dated 19-10-1989, Annexure-1, passed by Sri R. B. Bhaskar, opposite party No. 5, in his capacity as Cane Commissioner U. P. opposite party No. 1, whereby he has cancelled the order of transfer passed in respect of Sri Debi Dass opposite party No. 6, the consequence of which is that he will be retained at Pilibhit. 2. The petitioner was posted as Ganna Vikas Nirikshak (Krai)/Sachiv, Ganna Samiti, Hardoi (Growers), when by order, dated 22-6-1989, Annexure-2, he was transferred to Pooranpur, district Pilibhit in the same capacity. Sri Debi Dass, opposite party No. 6, who was posted at Pilibhit of Ganna Vikas Nirikshak/Sachiv was transferred to Bareilly. In pursuance of this order the petitioner joined at Pilibhit an 5-7-1989. Thereafter on 19-10-1989 the impugned order was passed by the Cane Commissioner whereby opposite party No. 6 Debi Dass has been posted in place of the petitioner at Pilibhit and the petitioner has been designated as Ganna Vikas Nirikshak (Vikas), Pilibhit. The consequence of this order is that the petitioner as well as Debi are not posted at Pilibhit but while Debi Das is posted as Ganna Vikas Nirikshak/Sachiv the petitioner is posted as Ganna Vikas Nirikshak only. 3. The impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it has been passed on extraneous consideration as a result of influence exercised upon the Cane Commissioner by opposite party No. 6. The petitioner's plea also is that by the impugned order he has been reverted from the post of Sachiv to the post of Ganna Vikas Nirikshak. 4. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party No. 6 in which it has been stated that the pay-scale of the post of Cane Development Inspector and Sachiv Cane Society is identical and, therefore, the petitioner's plea that he has been reverted is misconceived. It has also been started that Cane Development Inspector are some times allotted extra work of Sachiv by the Cane Commissioner opposite party No. 6 has denied the petitioner's allegation that he brought extraneous pressure to bear on the Cane Commissioner in obtaining the impugned order. It is averred that the opposite party is an appointee of the year 1972 while the petitioner is an appointee of the year 1980. It is averred that the opposite party is an appointee of the year 1972 while the petitioner is an appointee of the year 1980. It has also been stated in paragraph 16 that usually the senior person is appointed as Sachiv. 5. In the rejoinder-affidavit filed by the petitioner the opposite party's assertion that the pay scale of the posts of Inspector and Secretary is the same has not been controverted. Accordingly it cannot be said that the post of Sachiv is a promotion post. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, invited our attention to Section 31 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 where under the Secretary has been described as the Chief Executive Officer of the Society. It is true that under sub-section (2) of Section 31 Secretary of a Society is the Chief Executive Officer of that Society but thereby alone it cannot be inferred that the post of Secretary is a promotion post. The scale of pay of both the posts being the same the Cane Commissioner cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily in appointing the senior person to the post of Secretary alongwith the charge of the post of Inspector and posting the junior person to the post of Inspector only. Opposite party No. 6 has mentioned his year of appointment as 1972 and of the petitioner as 1980, in paragraph-1 6 of the counter-affidavit. This fact has not been controverted in paragraph-16 of the rejoinder-affidavit. 6. Apart from the above we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution as the petitioner does not suffer any injury by the impugned order. He was posted at Pilibhit and he has been retained thereon the same post on which he was working at Hardoi. The only difference now is that instead of holding dual charge he will hold single charge. This does not result in lowering his status in the service to which he belongs. 7. In view of the above the petition is dismissed and the interim order is hereby discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.