JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Counsel for the appellants (in special appeal Nos. 1005 of 2008, 1006 of 2008, 1007 of 2008 and 1008 of 2008), Sri Ashok Pandey, learned Counsel for the appellants (in special appeal No. 971 of 2008), Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Counsel for the appellants (in special appeal No. (631) of 2008), Sri N.S. Chahar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents (in all the special appeals). 2. This bunch of special appeals, 6 in number, has been filed against the leading judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge dated 1st August, 2008, in writ petition No. 33059 of 2008 (Sunil Kumar Shukla and others v. State of U.P. and others), writ petition No. 32765 of 2008 (Rama Shanker Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others) writ petition No. Ashique Ali and others v. State of U.P. and others). In all these writ petitions the challenge was to an order dated 27th June, 2008 passed by the Inspector General, Jail Administration and Reforms Services, U.P. Lucknow. The Hon’ble Single Judge has been pleased to dismiss the writ petitions. Other writ petitions giving rise to this bunch of special appeals have also been dismissed by the same Hon’ble Single Judge in terms of the judgment and order passed in writ petition No. 33059 of 2008 (Sunil Kumar Shukla and others v. State of U.P. and others). 3. Since the basic facts and legal issues raised in all these special appeals are more or less identical, they have been heard together. All the Special Appeals are being decided by this common judgment. The facts on record of Special Appeal No. 1006 of 2008 are being noticed for the purposes of present judgment treating the same to be the leading case. 4. The writ petitioners, who are appellants in this bunch of appeals, have been working as Bandi Rakshak/Warders in different jails within the State of Uttar Pradesh. They have been transferred vide order dated 27th June, 2008 issued by the Inspector General, Jail Administration and Reforms Services, U.P. Lucknow from one jail circle to another. It is against this order of transfer that aforesaid writ petitions were filed. 5. They have been transferred vide order dated 27th June, 2008 issued by the Inspector General, Jail Administration and Reforms Services, U.P. Lucknow from one jail circle to another. It is against this order of transfer that aforesaid writ petitions were filed. 5. Learned Counsels for the appellants challenging the order dated 27th June, 2008 as also the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge submitted as follows : (1) All the writ petitioners were appointed in a particular jail circle and they could not have been transferred out of jail circle, in which they were so appointed. It is submitted that the advertisement for recruitment was issued circle-wise, they having been appointed only for a particular jail circle where they have been working, transfer out of circle is not permissible under law. (2) The transfer order has been passed transferring more than 80% of the jail warders of a particular jail. It is submitted that under para-980 of Chapter-XXXVII of U.P. Jail Manual, power has been conferred upon the Inspector General to transfer the Warders from one circle to another but such power is by way of an exception to the General Rules that warders are to remain in a circle, where they have been appointed. Para-979 contemplates the transfer within the same circle by the Jail Superintendent subject to the orders of the Inspector-General. (3) The State Government has laid down the transfer policy for the year 2008 vide Government Order dated 15th May, 2008, the Inspector General, Jail Administration and Reforms Services, U.P. Lucknow has no authority or jurisdiction to lay down a different policy qua transfer of warders dated 4th June, 2008. Such power to lay down a policy for transfer of warders vests only with the State Government and not with the Inspector General. (4) The transfer orders of the appellants to different circles records that transfer is for a period of three years, and their lien in the original circles is maintained. This clearly demonstrate that transfers are by way of deputation. Consent of the appellants has not been obtained before effecting such deputation orders. (5) Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the appellants (in special appeal No. 971 of 2008) has further submitted that these appellants are intramural jail warders and they are not covered by paras-979 and 980 of Chapter-XXXVII of U.P. Jail Manual. 6. Consent of the appellants has not been obtained before effecting such deputation orders. (5) Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the appellants (in special appeal No. 971 of 2008) has further submitted that these appellants are intramural jail warders and they are not covered by paras-979 and 980 of Chapter-XXXVII of U.P. Jail Manual. 6. Learned Standing Counsel supporting the impugned order of transfer as well as the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, in reply, contended that the Inspector General has been conferred an authority under para-980 of the U.P. Jail Manual to transfer warders from one circle to another. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellants could be transferred out of circle by the Inspector General in exceptional cases only, is misconceived, as no such restriction has been provided under Para-980. It is submitted that although the appellants were recruited subsequent to selection made circle-wise, yet they can be transferred out of circle in view of Para-980. It is further submitted that under the policy laid down only those warders are being transferred out of circle, who have remained posted in a particular jail circle for 10-15 years. For stream lining the jail administration and for improving the control, management, and superintendence in jails, a policy has been laid down for transfer of warders who have continued for more than a decade in a particular jail circle. With this object in mind, transfers have been affected, qua the petitioners in accordance with law. The Inspector General has power to issue general guidelines for regulating the transfer. It has been further submitted that transfer in the facts of the case is not by way of deputation. Hence there was no occasion to obtain the consent of the appellants before passing the impugned order. Lastly it is submitted that similar writ petitions had been dismissed by Hon’ble Single Judge of the Lucknow Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 22nd July, 2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 4064 (S/S) of 2003 (Shitla Prasad Shukla and others v. State of U.P. and others). 7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 8. 7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 8. The Hon’ble Single Judge under the impugned judgment and order dated 1st August, 2008 has recorded that transfers outside the circle have been affected qua those jail warders, who have remained in a particular jail circle for 10-15 years. It has been further recorded that the transfers have been so made with an intent to improve the jail administration and to break the nexuses, which has been reported to have developed between the warders and the jail inmates. It has further been held that paras-979 and 980 of the U.P. Jail Manual permits transfer of warders out of the circle. With the aforesaid findings, the Hon’ble Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions. 9. Before proceeding to consider the other submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants, we may first consider the issue as to whether the Inspector General, Jail Administration and Reforms Services, U.P. Lucknow had authority or jurisdiction to issue the circular dated 4th June, 2008, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to Special Appeal No. 1006 of 2008 or not. 10. The Prisoners Act, 1894 consolidates the law relating to prisons in India. The Inspector General has been defined in Section 3 (7) of the Prisoners Act. Section-5 of the Prisoners Act provides for exercise of power by the Inspector General and reads as follows : “5. Inspector-General.—(1) An Inspector-General shall be appointed for the territories subject to each [State Government] and shall exercise, subject to the orders of the [State Government], the general control and superintendence of all prisons situated in the territories under such Government. [(2) The State Government may also appoint one or more Deputy Inspectors-General of Prisons, and they shall preform such of the functions of the Inspector-General under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force as may be entrusted to them by or under the rules made under this Act].” 11. The U.P. Jail Manual is a compilation of circulars and instructions issued for classification of jail and other matters pertaining to the prisons and the officials, who are posted in jail in connection with its affairs including these relating to the prisoners. 12. The U.P. Jail Manual is a compilation of circulars and instructions issued for classification of jail and other matters pertaining to the prisons and the officials, who are posted in jail in connection with its affairs including these relating to the prisoners. 12. Paras 979 and 980 of the U.P. Jail Manual, which are relevant for the present case are quoted herein below : “979. Transfer of warders.—Subject to the general control of the Inspector General, the Superintendent, Class I each of the concerned circle shall transfer warders and head warders in his circle. 980. Transfer of warders from one circle to another.—The transfer of warders from one circle to another or from the reserve warder guard to the intramural guard or vice versa requires the previous sanction of the Inspector-General. Warders transferred to another circle shall be placed on the gradation list according to the dates of their appointments to the grade.” 13. Perusal of Section-5 of the Prisons Act clearly provides that Inspector General shall exercise general control and superintendence over prisons situated in the territories under such Government. Thus Section-5 fully empowers the Inspector General to exercise general control and superintendence over the prisons which would include posting of the staff. Para-980 of the Jail Manual further empowers the Inspector General to transfer the warders from one circle to another. When the authority is empowered under a statutory enactment to perform a particular function, such power will include all the acts necessary for effective exercise of powers. The Inspector General having been vested power to exercise general control and superintendence, and further specific power to transfer a warder from one circle to another, he is empowered to frame guidelines and to issue instructions to all subordinates with regard to the manner for transfers of warders in accordance with guidelines framed and made applicable to all similarly situate staffs. Thus, the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellants that Inspector General had no authority or jurisdiction to issue the circular dated 4th June, 2008 cannot be accepted. 14. The next submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellants to be considered is that the Jail warders were appointed in a particular circle and therefore they could not have been transferred out of circle, except in particular cases where the Inspector General directs transfer of such a warder out of circle. 15. 14. The next submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellants to be considered is that the Jail warders were appointed in a particular circle and therefore they could not have been transferred out of circle, except in particular cases where the Inspector General directs transfer of such a warder out of circle. 15. The submission so made has been so stated only to be rejected. Para-980 of the U.P. Jail Manual confers a power upon the Inspector General to sanction the transfer of warder from one circle to another with no restrictions attached thereto. It includes the power to lay down uniform guidelines for transfer of similarly situate staff. We may notice that under para-979 of the Jail Manual, Jail Superintendent has been conferred the power to transfer a warder within his circle, but such power of the Jail Superintendent has also been made subject to the general control of the Inspector General. Thus powers under Para-979, qua transfer of a warder within the circle can be exercised by the Jail Superintendent in accordance with the circulars issued by the Inspector General and not in defiance thereto. Thus the contention of the appellant that under para-980, the Inspector General can transfer a warder from one circle to another only in an exceptional case is based on misreading of the provisions of the Jail Manual and cannot be accepted. 16. The contention of the appellants that the transfer of the appellants has been affected for a fixed period (three years) maintaining their lien in their original circles is in the nature of deputation and therefore, their consent was but necessary also, does not appeal to us. Deputation takes place when an employee is lent by his present department to another department or for foreign service. Appellants have been transferred from one circle to another of the same department. The order for maintaining their lien in the original circle has only been issued because of their time bound transfer i.e. 3 years and in order to avoid any complications in view of the last lines of Para-980, whereunder a transferred warders is to be placed in the gradation list of the transferred circle. 17. The order for maintaining their lien in the original circle has only been issued because of their time bound transfer i.e. 3 years and in order to avoid any complications in view of the last lines of Para-980, whereunder a transferred warders is to be placed in the gradation list of the transferred circle. 17. With regard to the submission made by Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the appellants (in special appeal No. 971 of 2008) to the effect that paras 979 and 980 of the Jail Manual are not applicable to the appellants as they are intramural jail warders, we may only state that the same is based on non-consideration of para-976 of the Jail Manual, which classifies the warder guard into two classes, (a) the reserve guard and (b) the intramural guard. Para-980 of the Jail Manual applies equally to all classes of warders. So far as the provisions of U.P. Intramural Guard Service Rules, 1983 are concerned, suffice is to record that the rules govern only specific matters as provided under the rules, pertaining to the recruitment, qualification, appointment, pay etc. of intramural warders. The Jail Manual is applicable to all categories of employees including the intramural warders, who are also posted in connection with the jail affairs. It cannot be said that paras 979 and 980 of the Jail Manual are not applicable to the appellants of special appeal No. 971 of 2008. 18. Two last contentions made on behalf of the appellants, namely, that nearly 80% jail warders in respect of a particular jail circle have been transferred under the impugned order, therefore, such exercise is totally unwarranted, and that the policy laid down by the State Government in respect of transfer of Government employees cannot be substituted by the Policy which has been framed by the Inspector General, Jail Administration and Reforms Service, U.P. Lucknow under circular dated 4th June, 2008 need also be examined. 19. Competence of the Inspector General to issue the circulars has already been upheld by us herein above. Such issuance of the circular by the Inspector General is with reference to the statutory powers conferred upon him. The policy guidelines laid down under the circular dated 4th June, 2008 are supplemental to the general policy of the transfer laid down by the State Government. Such issuance of the circular by the Inspector General is with reference to the statutory powers conferred upon him. The policy guidelines laid down under the circular dated 4th June, 2008 are supplemental to the general policy of the transfer laid down by the State Government. Even otherwise we may record that the power under Para-980 being specific in respect of jail warders, the circular issued therein by the Competent Authority would not in any way subservient to the general policy/guidelines of the State Government. It is settled law that specific provision shall prevail over general provisions. If under the policy guidelines determined by the Inspector General dated 4th June, 2008, more than 80% of the jail warders fall within the category of warders who are to be transferred outside the circle, in view of the fact that they had worked in a particular jail circle for more than 10-15 years, we see no reason as to why these 80% jail warders, who are within the frame work of the circular dated 4th June, 2008 be not transferred outside the circle. Nor can such transfer be said to be arbitrary or not warranted under Para-980. Therefore, both the said contentions are also rejected. 20. We notice that the Hon’ble Single Judge has recorded cogent reasons approving the policy of the authority for transfer of those warders who have remained in a particular Jail for 10-15 years. Transfer is an exigency of service. This Court will not interfere with the order of the Inspector General or with the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge, unless it is proved that such orders of transfer are mala fide or in violation of Statutory provisions. 21. Reference may be had to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Rao v. Union of India, JT 1992 (6) SC 732; National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Jai Bhagwan and Shiv Prakash, JT 2001 (7) SC 515; Vardha Rao v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1986 SC 1955 and Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2008 (1) UPLBEC 523. 22. In all the writ petitions giving rise to the present bunch of the special appeals, no allegations of mala fide have been made against any of the respondents nor any of the officers/authorities have been impleaded by name in any of the writ petition. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2008 (1) UPLBEC 523. 22. In all the writ petitions giving rise to the present bunch of the special appeals, no allegations of mala fide have been made against any of the respondents nor any of the officers/authorities have been impleaded by name in any of the writ petition. Similarly no violation of statutory provisions has been found for any scope of interference against an order of transfer in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 23. All these special appeals are accordingly dismissed. —————