R. A. SHARMA, J. By this petition, petitioner has challenged the order of his transfer from Allahabad Development Authority to Bareilly Development Authority. Initially this writ petition was heard by another Division Bench, but on account of non-availability of one of the Honble Judges, who constituted the Bench, this case was released and Honble Senior Judge has nominated our Bench for this case. 2. Petitioner is Chief Accounts Officer of the Allahabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority ). He was transferred vide order dated 18th June, 1994 from Allahabad Authority to Bareilly Develop ment Authority. He made a representation against his transfer. His represen tation was accepted and the Government, vide order dated 22-6-1994, cancelled the aforesaid order of transfer and permitted the petitioner to continue to work as Chief Accounts Officer of the Authority. It appears that some members of the Legislative Assembly belonging to ruling Bahujan Samaj Party made repre sentation to the Chief Minister of the State for transfer of the petitioner. Some representation for transfer of the petitioner from Allahabad, was also made to Km. Mayawati, General Secretary of Bahujan Samaj Party,, who recommended to the Chief Minister for transfer of the petitioner from Allahabad. There after order dated 4-8-1994 was passed transferring the petitioner again from Allahabad Authority to Bareilly Development Authority. In pursuance of the above order of transfer the Vice-Chairman of the Authority directed the Joint Secratary, Sri Radhey Shyam Gupta, to perform the duties of the Chief Accounts Officer. Being aggrieved by the above orders the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. The Government of U. P. as well as the Vice-Chairman of the Autho rity, have filed counter-affidavits and the petitioner has filed re-joinder-affidavit in reply thereto. We have heard the learned counsel for parties. 4. The petitioner has challenged the order of his transfer on three grounds, viz,- (i) petitioner holds a non-transferable post and as such he cannot be transferred ; (ii) the impugned order has not been passed due to exigencies of service but on the basis of complaint made by certain members of Legislative Assembly belonging to ruling Bahujan Samaj Party and the recommendation of the General Secretary of the Bahujan Samaj Party, at the instance of the Vice- Chairman of the Autho-tity ; and (iii) the order of transfer has been passed on account of mala fide and extraneous considerations. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the Vice-Chairman of the authority has, apart from disputing the above contentions, raised two preliminary objections ; viz. ,- (1) the petitioner is guilty of concealment of the facts ; and (2) Sri Dharm Pal, who is working in place of the petitioner has not been impleaded as a party to the writ petition, and as such the writ petition is not maintainable. On merit, the contentions of the learned counsel are three ; viz, firstly, the petitioner holds a civil post under the State and as such he is liable to be transferr ed ; secondly, every employer has inherent right to transfer its employees ; and thirdly, under the conditions of his appointment, as contained in the confirmation letter, the petitioner can be trans ferred from one authority to another. Learned Standing counsel has reiterated the stand taken by the Government in its counter-affidavit. 6. State of Uttar Pradesh enacted an Act known as The Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for planned development of the towns in this State. Under Section 3 of the Act the State Government is empowered to declare any area which, in its opinion, requires to be developed according to the plan, as development area. Thereafter the Government under Section 4 has to constitute an autho rity to be called the Development Authority for the development area. Sub section (2) of Section 4 makes the Development Authority as body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire, hold and dispose of the property. The relevant parts of Section 4 are reproduced below: "4. (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Gazette, constitute for the purposes of this Act, authority to be called the Development Authority for any development area. (2) The authority shall be a body corporate, by the name given to it in the said notification, having perpetual succession and a com mon seal with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property, both movable and immoveable and to contract and shall by the said name sue and be sued. " Section 5, which deals with the staff of the authority, is as under : 5. " Section 5, which deals with the staff of the authority, is as under : 5. Staff of the authority.- (1) The State Government may appoint two suitable persons respectively as the Secretary and the Chief Accounts Officer of the Authority who shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be prescribed by regulations or delegated to them by the authority or its Vice- Chairman. (2) Subject to such control and restrictions as may be determined by general or special order of the State Government, may appoint such number of other officers and employees as may be necessary for the efficient performance of its functions and may determine their designations and grades. " 7. Under Section 5 (1) the State Government has been authorised to appoint the Secretary and Chief Accounts Officer of the Authority. Under sub-section (2) of Section 5 the authority has to appoint such num ber of other officers and employees as may be necessary for efficient performance of its function. The Act did not provide for transfer of an officer Development Authority to another till 1984, when adding Section 5-A with effect from 22-10-1984, by in which provision was made for the first time pro viding for transfer of the employees belonging to the development Authorities Centralised Services (hereinafter referred to as the Centralised Services ). Sec tion 5-A is as under : "5-A. Creation of Centalised Services.- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 5 or in and other law for the time being in force, the State Government may at any time, by notification, create one or more development Authorities Centralised Services for such posts, other than the posts in sub section (4) of Section 59, as the State Government may deem fit, common to all the Development Authorities, and may prescribe the manner and conditions of recruitment to, and the terms and conditions of service of persons appointed to such service. (2) Upon creation of Development Authorities Centralised Service, a person serving on the posts included in such service immediately before such creation, not being a person governed by the U. P. Palika (Centralised) Services Rules, 1966, or serving on deputation, shall, unless he opts otherwise, be absorbed in such service :- (a) finally, if he was already confirmed in his post, and (b) provisionally, if he was holding temporary or officiating appointment. (3) A person referred to in sub-section (2) may, within three months from the creation of such Development Authorised Centralised Services communicate to the Government in the Housing Depart ment, his option not to be absorbed in such Centralised Services, failing which he shall be deemed to have opted for final or provisional, as the case may be, absorption in such Centralised Services. (4) Suitability of a person absorbed provisionally, for final absorption in a Development Authorities Centralised Service, shall be examin ed in the manner prescribed and if found suitable he shall be absorbed finally. (5) The services of an employee who opts against absorption or who is not found suitable for final absorption, shall stand determined and he shall, without prejudice to his claim to any leave, pension, provident fund or gratuity which he would have been entitled to, be entitled to receive as compensation from the Development Authority concerned, as amount equal to- (a) three months salary, if he was a permanent employee ; (b) one months salary, if he was a temporary employee. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section the term salary includes dearness allowance, personal pay and special pay, if any. (6) It shall be lawful for the State Government or any officer athorised by it in this behalf, to transfer any person holding any post in a Development Authorities Centralised Services from one Develop ment Authority to another. " 8. Petitioner has stated in his supplementary affidavit that before enact ment of U. P. Act No. 21 of 1985 the Governor of Uttar Pradesh issued an Ordinance adding Section 5-A to the Act, which provided for creation of Centralised Services and in pursuance of the Ordinances the Government issued a notification dated October 22, 1984 creating Centralised Services, photostet copy of which has been filed as Annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit, in which the post of Chief Account Officer was included, but the Ordinance was allowed to lapse and thereafter U. P. Act. No. 21 of 1985 was passed adding Section 5-A. After enactment of U. P. Act No. 21 of 1985 another noti fication dated 25-6-1985, creating Centralised Services was issued, but the post of Chief Accounts Officer was not included in it. The fact that the post of Chief Accounts Officer, which is held by the petitioner, does not belong to the Centralised Services, has not been disputed by the respondents. The fact that the post of Chief Accounts Officer, which is held by the petitioner, does not belong to the Centralised Services, has not been disputed by the respondents. 9. From perusal of relevant provisions of the Act, specially Sections 3,4, 5-A, 56 and 57 it is clear that the Development Authority is constituted under Section 4 by the Government for the area which is declared as development area under Section 3. Every Development Authority is body corporate by the name given to it in the notification issued under Section 4 (1), having per petual succession and common seal with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property and to contract and is liable to sue and be sued by the said name. Each Development Authority is independent body and has separate adminis tration. Each authority is entitled to make regulations under Section 56 for administration of its affairs and regulations can also be framed by it for regu lating the conditions of service of its employees, including the Secretary and the Chief Accounts Officer. Each of these authorities is also entitled to make bye-laws under Section 57 for the matters provided therein. The authority is not a part of the department of the Government. 10. Although the Secretary and the Chief Accounts Officer of the Deve lopment Authority are appointed by the State Government, but as laid down by sub-section (1) of Section 5 they are to exercise such powers and perform such duties as are prescribed by regulations or delegated to them by the Deve lopment Authority or its Vice-Chairman. In view of sub-section (3) of Sec tion 5, like other employees and officers of the Authority, the Secretary and the Chief Accounts Officer are entitled to receive from the funds of the autho rity such salary and allowances and are governed by such other conditions of service as may determined by regulations made in that behalf. Regulations are to be made under Section 56 by the authority itself with the previous approval of the State Government. The Secretary and the Chief Accounts Officer, as such, are governed by service conditions as may be laid down by the Development Authority by regulations. It is thus apparent that each Development Authority is statutory and autonomous body, controlled by the Act. The Secretary and the Chief Accounts Officer, as such, are governed by service conditions as may be laid down by the Development Authority by regulations. It is thus apparent that each Development Authority is statutory and autonomous body, controlled by the Act. It Sis independent authority and is not part of the department of the Government and all the employees including the Chief Accounts Officer are the employees of the Authority and are not Government servants. They are governed by such conditions of service as may be laid down by the authority itself by means of regulations. 11. The Act, Rules and Regulations framed thereunder do not autho rise the Government to transfer the Chief Accounts Officer or any other employee from one Authority to another, unless they belong to Centralised Services. The post of Chief Accounts Officer does not belong to the Centralis ed Services and there is no State level service for Chief Accounts Officer. The State Government, as such, was not competent to transfer the petitioner from Allahabad Authority to Bareilly Development Authority. 12. In General Officer Commanding-in-Chief v. Dr. Subhash Chandra Yadav, AIR 1988 SC 876 question before Supreme Court was whether an em ployee of the Cantonment Board can be transferred to another Cantonment Board and in this connection validity of Rule 5-C of the Cantonment Boards Servants Rules, 1937, which provided for transfer, was also challenged. Supreme Court upheld the plea of the employee holding that each Cantonment Board is independent body functioning within its jurisdiction and the employee of a Board cannot be transferred to another Board, in the absence of any Centralised services or service at the State level. Rule 5-C was accordingly declared ultra vires. Relevant passages from the decision of Supreme Court are reproduced below : "the observation extracted above clearly supports the contention made on behalf of the respondent that the employees of one Can tonment Board cannot be transferred to another Cantonment Board inasmuch as the service under the Cantonment Board is not a Centralised services or service at the State-level. XX XX XX XX Xx The question, however, is whether the Central Government is entitled to frame rules for transfer of the employee of the Cantonment Boards under the substituted clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Sec tion 280 of the Cantonments Act. XX XX XX XX Xx The question, however, is whether the Central Government is entitled to frame rules for transfer of the employee of the Cantonment Boards under the substituted clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Sec tion 280 of the Cantonments Act. It is true that under clause (c), as it now stands, the Central Government can frame rules pertain ing to conditions of service of the Cantonment Board employees. But, in our opinion, even in spite of substituted clause (c), the Central Government will not be entitled to frame rules for trans fer of an employee from one Cantonment Board to another within the State for the reasons stated already, namely, (1) the Canton ment Boards are autonomous bodies ; (2) the service under the Cantonment Board is neither a Centralised services nor is it a service at the State-level; and (3) any such transfer of an employee will mean termination of service of the employee in the Canton ment Board from where he is transferred and a fresh appointment by the Cantonment Board which he joins on such transfer. XX XX XX XX Xx So long as the Cantonment Board service is not made Centralised services or at least a State-level service, there can be no transfer from one Cantonment Board to another Cantonment Board within the same State. The Central Government had better consider the question of making the Cantonment Board service a Centralised service so as to enable one Cantonment Board to transfer its em ployees to another Cantonment Board. " 13. In this connection reference may also be made to Jawahar Lal Nehru University v. K. S. Jawatkar, AIR 1989 SC 1577 , wherein it was laid down as under; "the position in law is clear that no employee can be transferred, without his consent, from one employer to another. The consent may be express or implied. " In the instant case the petitioner, being employee of the Development Authority, Allahabad and his post not belonging to the Centralised services, could not have transferred by the Government of U. P. from Allahabad Authority to Bareilly Development Authority without his consent. The consent may be express or implied. " In the instant case the petitioner, being employee of the Development Authority, Allahabad and his post not belonging to the Centralised services, could not have transferred by the Government of U. P. from Allahabad Authority to Bareilly Development Authority without his consent. That apart, when a per son is appointed to a specific post which does not belong to any regular service or the cadre but is an individual ex-cadre post attached to a particular authority or the institution, he cannot be transferred to another authority or the institu tion. The Government has admitted in its counter-affidavit that the petitioner holds ex-cadre post not belonging to Centralised services. There being no pro vision providing for transfer of such an employee the Government is not competent to transfer him. 14. The stand taken in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Government and the Vice-Chairman of the Authority are quite different. On behalf of the Government a counter-affidavit has been filed by Sri Rakesh Kumar Goyal, who is Joint Secretary, Avas, Uttar Pradesh Shasan, Lucknow, in which it has been admitted that the post of Chief Accounts Officer has not been included in Centralised services. It has also been stated in para 7 of the counter-affidavit that the post of Chief Accounts Officer is ex-cadre post with out any fixed tenure. It has, however, bet n stated that actually the petitioner has not been transferred from Allahabad Development Authority to another Development Authority rather he has been appointed/posted to Bareilly Deve lopment Authority by the impugned order. Para 7 of the counter-affidavit, being relevant, is reproduced below :- "that the contents of paragraph 10 of the writ petition are wholly misconceived, hence denied. It is simply stated on account of the fact that the post of the petitioner has not been included in the Centralised services referred to above as such be will not be trans ferred from one place to another. It is further stated that the post of Chief Accounts Officer is also not a catagory of post falling within the category of the post of non-centralied post as such. It is further stated that the post of Chief Accounts Officer is also not a catagory of post falling within the category of the post of non-centralied post as such. For all practical purposes the post of the Chief Accounts Officer is ex-cadre post, but without any fixed tenure, as such it cannot be said at all that the Chief Accounts Officer once appoint ed in any Development Authority shall continue till his attaining the age of superannuation retirement, however, it is stated that actually the petitioner has not been transferred from Allahabad Development Authority to another Authority, rather he has been appointed/posted to Bareilly Development Authority by the impugned order passed by the State Government. It is further stated that it is the well-settled principle that the power of appoint ment includes the power of posting and transfer and the transfer is one of the necessary incident of service. " 15. Government cannot transfer an employee of the statutory authority unless the power is conferred on it, even if it is his appointing authority. Neither the Act nor the regulation confer any power on the Government to transfer Chief Accounts Officer from one Authority to another. The Govern ment has been given power only to transfer the employees whose posts are governed by the Centralised Services Rules. Government has also no inherent power to transfer the employee of the statutory authority. The plea of the Government taken in the counter-affidavit that it has not actually transferred the petitioner from Allahabad Development Authority to Bareilly Development Authority and rather, it has only appointed him at Bareilly Development Authority also deserves rejection for two reasons, viz (1) the impugned order expressly mentioned about transfer of the petitioner from Allahabad to Bareilly Development Authority. It does not speak of termination of his service and his appointment at Bareilly; and (2) a person cannot be appointed against his Will. The Government cannot force the appointment of an un willing person and therefore, such a plea cannot be sustained. 16. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, that the petitioner holds civil post and as such he can be transferred by the Government under Fundamental Rule 15, contained in Financial Hand Book Vol. The Government cannot force the appointment of an un willing person and therefore, such a plea cannot be sustained. 16. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, that the petitioner holds civil post and as such he can be transferred by the Government under Fundamental Rule 15, contained in Financial Hand Book Vol. II to IV, which provides for transfer of the Government servants, cannot be accepted, because the petitioner does not hold civil post under Govern ment of Uttar Pradesh. He is an employee of a statutory Authority created under the Act, even though he was appointed by the Government, by virtue of power conferred on it by sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act. Fund amental Rule 15 is applicable to Government servants only, which is clear from the rule itself. Fundamental Rule 2 also provides that these rules will apply to the Government servants conditions of whose services have been or may be prescribed by the Government under sub-section (2) (b) of Section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935. Fundamental Rule as such, does not apply to the employee of the statutory Authority, unless they have been adopted by the Authority for governing their conditions of service. No such rule or regulation adopting fundamental rules for regulating condi tions of service of the employees of the Authority has been placed before us. In S. L. Agarwal V. Hindustan Steel Ltd. , AIR 1970 SC 1150 , the Supreme Court has laid down that Hindustan Steel Ltd. though a Corporation, but is not a department of the Government and its servants, as such, are not holders of civil posts under the State. In Tekraj Vasandi v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 469 , the Supreme Court, after considering its earlier decisions has reiterated that even if an authority is "state" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, its employees do not become holders of civil posts so as to be entitled to be covered under Article 311 of the Constitution. 17. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has placed reliance on G. B. Malinamani v. Commissioner, 1974 (1) SLR 669 ; Jawahar Lal Nehru Univer sity v. Dr. 17. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has placed reliance on G. B. Malinamani v. Commissioner, 1974 (1) SLR 669 ; Jawahar Lal Nehru Univer sity v. Dr. R. S. Jawatkar, AIR 1989 SC 1577 ; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shanker Lal, AIR 1980 SC 643 ; Hanuman Prasad v. Vice Chancellor, Garhwal University, 1984 UPLBEC 466, decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 6 of 1994 Manager [chairman Zila Parishad v. Smt. Rajeshwari Singh, decided on 13-4-1994, and Indrapal v. Comm. of Management, AIR 1984 SC 1110 case of G. B. Malinamani v. Commissioner, 1974 (1) SLR 669 (supra) is a decision of learned Single Judge of Mysore High Court. In that case what was involved was the transfer of an employee of the Corporation from one post to another in the same Corporation. It is not a case of transfer of a person from one employer to another. Decision of Jawahar Lal Nehru University v. Dr. K. S. Jawatkar, AIR 1989 SC 1577 (supra) in fact helps the petitioner. There an Assistant Professor appointed at Imphal Centre established by the Jawahar Lai Nehru University was transferred to Manipur Univestrity aloagwith the Centre. Supreme Court held that the employee cannot be transferred without his consent from one employer to another and his transfer was declared illegal. Decision of Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shanker Lal, AIR 1980 SC 643 , (supra) is also of no help to the learned counsel for the respondent because there Section 94 (7) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 contains the provisions authorising the State Government to transfer an officer or servant of a council. The case of Hanuman Prasad v. Vice Chancellor Garhwal University, 1984 UPLBEC 466, also deals with different problems, because there the appointment letter itself contained a clause according to which the petitioner therein could be transferred to any of the constituent colleges of the University. Decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Manager Chairman, Zila Parishad v. Smt. Rajeshwari Singh, Special Appeal No. 6 of 1994, decided on 13-4-1994 (supra) also deals with different situation. There Section 16-G (2) (c) of the Intermediate Education Act and Regulation 59 framed thereunder specially provide for transfer of the teacher from one institution, to another under certain conditions. There Section 16-G (2) (c) of the Intermediate Education Act and Regulation 59 framed thereunder specially provide for transfer of the teacher from one institution, to another under certain conditions. After enactment of U. P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Selection Board Act, 1982 the power of transfer could not have been exercised because of the provisions contained in Section 16 of the Act of 1982, which prohibited the appoint ment of a teacher except on the recommendation of the Secondary Education Service Commission. However, embargo placed on the appointment by transfer by Section 16 of the Act of 1982 was lifted, when the Act was amended in 1991 with the result that it again became open to transfer a teacher from one institution to another. Case of Indrapal v. Committee of Management, AIR 1984 SC 1110 , has laid down that the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act and regulations framed thereunder, "relat ing to the procedure to be followed before imposing the punishment of dis missal or removal from service are virtually the same as provided, by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and the principles which should govern this case should, therefore, be the same as those underlying Article 311 (2)". What this case has laid down is that if the two provisions regarding dismissal or removal from service are similar, the principles underlying the one as laid down by the Court should govern the case under the other provisions. It is not laid down that Article 311 of the other provisions, which are applic able to Government servants, can be applied to the employees of the Autho rity or the institution which are not part of the department of the Government. 18. Before concluding this issue reference may also be made to Sec tion 47 of the Act which makes every member, every officer and other employees of the Authority, a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of this section learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 contended that the petitioner becomes a public servant and thus comes within the jurisdiction of the State Government for the pur poses of transfer. No such inference can be drawn from Section 47. This section merely provides protection to the employees of the Authority for limited purposes. No such inference can be drawn from Section 47. This section merely provides protection to the employees of the Authority for limited purposes. This does not confer power on the Government to transfer the employees from one Authority to another. 19. For the reasons already given the Government does not have inherent right to transfer employees of statutory Authority. 20. The third contention of the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 is also devoid of merit. There is no condition in the order of the Government dated 21/22-5-1982 whereby the petitioner was confirmed as Chief Accounts Officer of the Authority, authorising it to transfer him from the Authority to any other Development Authority. There are only three conditions men tioned in this order viz. (1) the petitioners service will be governed by service regulations issued from time to time under law for governing the condi tions of service of the officers and employees of the Authority (ii) seniority will be determined in accordance with rules, regulations ; and (iii) after abolition of the authority the petitioner cannot lay any claim to any other post. Regulation can be framed by the Authority for governing conditions of service of Chief Accounts Officer and its other employees under Section 56 of the Act. There is no provision for transferring the petitioner from the Authority to another Authority. Centralised Services Rules cannot be applied to the petitioners case because his post is not included in it. Govern ment does not have any right to transfer the petitioner under any of the conditions. 21. The preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, are also devoid of merits. What is said to have been concealed by the petitioner is his letter dated 4-3-1987 written by him to the Government of U. P. for his transfer from Allahabad, by including his post in the Centralised Services. This letter has been filed as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit of Sri P. L. Loi, Vice Chairman of the Authority. It has been stated in that counter-affidavit that on the basis of his request the peti tioner was transferred in 1987 to Gorakhpur Development Authority on 12-5-1987 and thereafter to Varanasi Development Authority on 12-6-1987. He was again transferred to Allahabad on 10-4-1988. It has been stated in that counter-affidavit that on the basis of his request the peti tioner was transferred in 1987 to Gorakhpur Development Authority on 12-5-1987 and thereafter to Varanasi Development Authority on 12-6-1987. He was again transferred to Allahabad on 10-4-1988. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 is that as the petitioner himself has requested for his transfer he cannot challenge the transfer and ho having concealed this fact this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. This plea has to be rejected. It is true that by his letter dated 4-3-1987 the petitioner requested the Government to transfer him from Allahabad, but by the same letter he requested for including the post of Chief Accounts Officer in the Centralised Services. The Government did transfer him in 1987, without amending the Centralised Services Rules. The petitioner did not object to his transfer at that time. This is past history which is not relevant for determining the question as to whether the impugned order of transfer, passed in August 1994, is valid or not. The impugned order of transfer has not been passed on the basis of his request. Rather, when he was transferred in June, 1994, he raised objection against it on the ground that he cannot be transferred as his post does not belong to Centralised Services. This plea appears to have been accepted by the Government and the transfer order was cancelled. 22. As regards the other plea regarding the impleadment of the person who is performing the duties of Chief Accounts Officer is concerned, it may be mentioned that it is not a case where the petitioner has been transferred and in his place another person has been transferred or appointed. Supreme Court in Udit Narain v. Additional Member Board of Revenue, All 1963 SC 786, has laid down that both, the authority which has passed the order and the person in whose favour the order has been passed, are the necessary parties to the writ petition and if any of them is not impleaded the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for want of necessary parties. The impugned order has been passed by the Government of U. P. which has been impleaded as a party to the writ petition. The impugned order has been passed by the Government of U. P. which has been impleaded as a party to the writ petition. This order has not been passed in favour of any other person, because no body else was transferred or appointed in place of the petitioner by the impugned order. By order dated 10-8-1994 the Vice Chairman has merely asked an Accounts Officer, named Sri Radhey Shyam, to perform the duties of the Chief Accounts Officer till some one is appointed by the Government. It has been stated that now in place of Sri Radhey Shyam another person is performing the duties of Chief Accounts Officer, but that person has not been appointed as Chief Accounts Officer. Such a person is not necessary party to this writ petition. The decision of Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 6 of 1994 is of no help to the learned counsel, because in that case by the same order by which the petitioner therein was transferred another person in his place. That was the order which was passed in favour of another person who was thus held to be necessary party. That is not the position here. 23. As we are allowing the writ petition on the first point raised on behalf of the petitioner, it is not necessary to deal with other points and we express no opinion on them. 24. For the reasons given above, this writ petition is allowed with costs. The impugned order of transfer dated 4th August 1994 and 10th August 1994 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) is quashed. Petition allowed. .