JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.K. Narayana, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri N.C. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided at the admission stage. 3. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.11.2008 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) passed by the opposite party No. 2 by which the petitioner, who is holding the post of Secretary, has been transferred from Mandi Samiti, Kanpur to Mandi Samiti, Bharuwa Sumerpur. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Secretary, Grade-I for Grade “A” Special Mandi by order dated 25.5.1987 passed by Director, Mandi Parishad. Between 1987 and 1995, the petitioner was subjected to twenty transfers Rs. The petitioner challenged his transfer as Sachiv Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Pratapgarh where he was posted in August 1995 to Mandi Samiti Maigalganj, District Kheri by filing Writ Petition No. 719 of 1996 before this Court, which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 1.8.1996. The petitioner challenged the order dated 1.8.1996 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 18847/96 in which an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner whereby the transfer order was stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 27.9.1996. The Special Leave Petition No. 18847/96 itself was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 2.12.1996 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court taking a serious note of the frequent transfers to which the petitioner had been subjected observed as hereunder : "On behalf of the petitioner it was pointed out that within nine years, he has been transferred twenty times from one place to another. It is well settled that transfer order can be issued in the public interest or under administrative exigency but we are of the opinion that such frequent transfers do not serve the public interest. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent assured that in future any transfer order in respect of petitioner shall be issued in accordance with the prevalent practice, procedure and order of High Court dated 20.9.1996 shall not stand in the way.” 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent assured that in future any transfer order in respect of petitioner shall be issued in accordance with the prevalent practice, procedure and order of High Court dated 20.9.1996 shall not stand in the way.” 5. However, despite the assurance given by the opposite parties before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner was again subjected to eleven inter districts transfers between 20.6.1997 to 20.11.2003. Details of the aforesaid transfers have been given by the petitioner in paragraphs-4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the writ petition. The order dated 20.11.2003 of the opposite party No. 1 transferring the petitioner from Mandi Samiti, Pilibhit to Mandi Samiti, Lalitpur was challenged by the petitioner by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7627 (SS) of 2003 before this Hon’ble Court. This Hon’ble Court was pleased to grant interim relief to the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition by an order passed on 3.12.2003 whereby implementation of the transfer order dated 20.11.2003 was stayed. However, with a view to circumvent the interim order passed by this Hon’ble Court on 3.12.2003, the opposite party No. 1 purported to pass yet an other order on 3.12.2003 by which the place of transfer of the petitioner mentioned in the transfer order dated 20.11.2003 was changed to Mandi Samiti, Etah. Upon becoming aware of the order dated 3.12.2003 passed by the opposite party No. 1, the petitioner challenged the same before this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No. 7715 (SS) of 2003 in which this Hon’ble Court was again pleased to grant an interim order in favour of the petitioner on 9.12.2003 staying the operation of the order dated 3.12.2003 passed by the opposite party No. 1. 6. The petitioner was transferred and posted at Mandi Samiti, Varanasi in the year 2006. By an order passed in August 2007, the petitioner was transferred from Mandi Samiti, Varanasi to Mandi Samiti, Faizabad. Yet, by another order dated 17.5.2008, the petitioner was transfered from Mandi Samiti, Faizabad to Mandi Samiti, Panwari (Mahoba). The transfer order dated 17.5.2008 was challenged by the petitioner before this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No. 3705 (SS) of 2008. By an order passed in August 2007, the petitioner was transferred from Mandi Samiti, Varanasi to Mandi Samiti, Faizabad. Yet, by another order dated 17.5.2008, the petitioner was transfered from Mandi Samiti, Faizabad to Mandi Samiti, Panwari (Mahoba). The transfer order dated 17.5.2008 was challenged by the petitioner before this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No. 3705 (SS) of 2008. However, the Writ Petition No. 3705 (SS) of 2008 was dismissed as infructuous on the ground that the place to which the petitioner was transferred by order dated 17.5.2008 had been changed to Mandi Samiti, Kanpur on the request of the petitioner by an order dated 26.7.2008 passed by the opposite party No. 1. A copy of the order dated 26.7.2008 has been brought on record as Annexure 8-A to the writ petition. However, within four months of the petitioner’s joining at Mandi Samiti, Kanpur, the opposite parties have by the impugned order again transferred the petitioner from Mandi Samiti, Kanpur to Mandi Samiti, Bharuwa Sumerpur, which is a Grade “C” Mandi Samiti. 7. The impugned transfer order has been challenged by the petitioner on the following grounds : (i) The transfer of the petitioner, who is a Secretary Grade-I, by order dated 15.11.2008 from ‘A’ class market to ‘C’ class market is in violation of Rule 4 of the U.P. Agriculture Produce Market Committees (Centralized) Service Regulations, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations”), which govern the service conditions of the petitioner. (ii) The transfer order has been passed in violation of the transfer policy declared by the State Government with regard to the transfer of its employees for the year 2008-2009. (iii) The impugned transfer order has been passed under political pressure. (iv) The impugned transfer order has been passed by way of punishment. (v) The impugned transfer order is in violation of the undertaking given by the opposite parties before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the petitioner shall be transferred only in accordance with the prevalent practice and procedure. (vi) The impugned transfer has neither been passed on administrative grounds nor in public interest but in furtherance of a calculated design of the opposite parties to harass the petitioner. 8. (vi) The impugned transfer has neither been passed on administrative grounds nor in public interest but in furtherance of a calculated design of the opposite parties to harass the petitioner. 8. As far as the first ground on which the petitioner has challenged the impugned transfer order is concerned, it has been brought to the notice of this Court by Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned counsel for the opposite parties that Rule 4 of the Regulations which required that a Secretary of a particular grade could be transferred only to the class of market indicated against his category has been amended by a new Regulation 4 as far back as in the year 1993 and according to the amended Regulation 4 there are five categories of Secretaries and the Secretary belonging to any category can be posted in any market. Substantiating his argument learned counsel for the opposite parties has drawn the attention of the Court to the amended Rule 4 of the Regulations which clearly shows that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned transfer order infringes Rule 4 of the Regulations is totally misconceived. Thus, the first ground on which the petitioner has challenged the impugned transfer order fails. 9. The second ground on which the petitioner’s counsel has challenged his transfer is that the same violates the transfer policy declared by the State Government for regulating and effecting the transfers of its employees for the year 2008-2009, which is applicable to the employees of the Mandi Parishad also and which provides that an employee shall not be normally transferred from his place of posting before three years. In the instant case, the petitioner has been transferred in gross violation of transfer policy as the petitioner has been transferred from Mandi Samiti Kanpur to Mandi Samiti, Bharuwa Sumerpur within four months of his posting at Kanpur. 10. Even if it is assumed that there is some infraction of the transfer policy which is in the nature of guidelines, the same does not confer upon a Government Employee a legally enforceable right. In Mrs. 10. Even if it is assumed that there is some infraction of the transfer policy which is in the nature of guidelines, the same does not confer upon a Government Employee a legally enforceable right. In Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1991 SC 532 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under : "A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to other. Transfer orders issued by the Competent Authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions of orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department." 11. In the case of Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444 , the Apex Court held as under : "The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right." 12. Thus, I am of the view that even if it is assumed that there is some infraction of the transfer policy laid down by the State Government, the order of transfer would not stand vitiated for that reason alone. 13. The third ground of challenge to the impugned order of transfer by the petitioner is that the same has been passed on account of political pressure as Sri Pankaj Kumar Srivastava, the real brother of the petitioner, who is posted as Deputy Inspector General of Police (CBI) is conducting an enquiry against several highly placed officers of the State Government. However, since the petitioner has neither impleaded any person by name, who is exerting political pressure upon the opposite parties to transfer the petitioner nor he has furnished any details of the highly placed Government Officers against whom the petitioner’s brother Sri Pankaj Kumar Srivastava is conducting enquiry, the allegation made by the petitioner regarding the transfer order being passed on account of political pressure cannot be examined. 14. 14. The fourth ground on which the petitioner has challenged the impugned transfer order is that the same has been passed by way of punishment and since no notice or the opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, the same is liable to be set aside on this ground also. 15. The material filed on behalf of the opposite parties alongwith their counter affidavit suggests that the impugned order of transfer has been passed on the allegations of misconduct. However, the law is settled that where there are allegations amounting to misconduct against an employee, the competent authority instead of initiating disciplinary proceedings against him may transfer him to some other place and the transfer order passed under such circumstances cannot be said to be vitiated on the ground that the same has been passed as a measure of punishment without notice. Hence, this contention of the petitioner is also rejected. 16. The fifth ground on which the petitioner has challenged the impugned transfer order is that the opposite parties in subjecting the petitioner to frequent transfers have violated the undertaking given by them before the Hon’ble Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 18847/96. Copy of the order passed in SLP No. 18847/96 is on record as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. There is enough unrebutted material on record to show that the petitioner had been transferred twenty times between 1987 to 1996 and about sixteen times between 2.12.1996 which is the date on which the SLP No. 18847/96 was disposed of by the Apex Court in terms of the assurance given on behalf of the opposite parties on July 2008. Sri Mathur appearing for the opposite parties has failed to furnish any justification for transferring the petitioner frequently in violation of the undertaking given by the opposite parties before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. I have no hesitation in holding that the opposite parties have miserably failed to honour the assurance given by them before the Apex Court in SLP No. 18847/96 preferred by the petitioner and the impugned transfer order stands vitiated on the ground of flagrant violation of the assurance given by the opposite parties before the Apex Court in SLP No. 18847/96. 17. 17. The sixth and last ground on which the petitioner has challenged the impugned transfer order is that the impugned order has been passed neither on account of any administrative exigency nor in public interest but in furtherance of the calculated design of the opposite parties to harass the petitioner. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was absolutely no material before the opposite parties on the basis of which the opinion for transferring the petitioner either on administrative ground or in public interest could be formed. The impugned transfer order has been passed by the opposite parties in an arbitrary exercise of power. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that ever since the petitioner has taken charge as Secretary of Mandi Parishad, Kanpur the income of the Mandi Parishad, Kanpur has increased and in comparison to the income of the last year there has been an increase in the income of the Mandi Parishad, Kanpur by 2.6% above the prescribed target. For substantiating his aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to a document, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure RA-7 to the rejoinder affidavit, which is a chart showing the comparative income of the different Mandi Samitis and Mandi Parishad of Uttar Pradesh. From the perusal of the said chart, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner stands fully established. 18. Repelling the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Jaideep Narain Mathur appearing for the opposite parties has submitted that the petitioner has given a false impression that he has been subjected to frequent transfers and that the impugned transfer order has been passed in an arbitrary manner without there being any material before the opposite party No. 1 for forming the opinion that it was expedient to transfer the petitioner from Mandi Samiti, Kanpur on administrative grounds. Sri Mathur has further submitted that after the petitioner had taken charge of Mandi Samiti, Kanpur there were several complaints against him and one of the major complaints against the petitioner was that he was neither permitting any officer to enter the market area of the Mandi Samiti nor he was allowing any officer to inspect any documents of the Mandi Parishad as a result the petitioner was issued various letters on 14.8.2008, 16.9.2008 and 4.10.2008, copies whereof have been filed as Annexures A-1, A-2 and A-3 to the Counter Affidavit. The petitioner instead of giving any reply to the aforesaid letters issued an order on 11.11.2008 restraining all the superior officers from inspecting any documents without his permission, which amounted to a serious misconduct. The Regional Deputy Director, Kanpur vide letter No. 2060 dated 11.11.2008 had also sent a report in this regard to the Director Mandi Parishad, Lucknow, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure A-5 to the counter affidavit. 19. Sri Mathur next submitted that after reviewing the work and assessment of all the Mandis made at the headquarters in the month of July, August, September and October, it was found that ‘A’ class Mandis of Allahabad, Varanasi and Kanpur were not functioning and discharging their duties properly which had resulted in reduction of market fee and income was also decreased and therefore, after assessing and reviewing the work of the Mandis by the Director Mandi Parishad, the Secretaries of Kanpur, Allahabad and Varanasi were transferred and the Secretaries of several other Mandi Samitis were awarded adverse entry and hence, the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed in malafide exercise of power calculated to harass the petitioner and without there being any administrative exigency is totally misconceived and incorrect and the impugned transfer cannot be categorized as a case of frequent transfers as alleged by the petitioner. 20. Replying to the arguments made on behalf of the opposite parties, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the petitioner taken charge of the Mandi Samiti, Kanpur, the income of the Mandi Parishad increased by 18.6% in comparison to the income of the last year, which is 2.6% above the target prescribed. 21. 20. Replying to the arguments made on behalf of the opposite parties, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the petitioner taken charge of the Mandi Samiti, Kanpur, the income of the Mandi Parishad increased by 18.6% in comparison to the income of the last year, which is 2.6% above the target prescribed. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that after receiving the letter, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure A-2 to the counter affidavit, the petitioner promptly obtained reports from different officials, who submitted their reports, copies whereof have been brought on record collectively as Annexure RA-4 to the petitioner’s rejoinder affidavit. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that upon receiving the letter, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure A-3 to the Counter Affidavit, the petitioner issued notices on 23.9.2008 and 23.10.2008 to the traders granting three days’ time to them for submitting their reply and to deposit the outstanding market fee and development cess together with interest, copies of the said notices have been filed by the petitioner collectively as Annexure RA-5 to the rejoinder affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that at no point of time the petitioner disobeyed any orders of his superior officers and had promptly replied to all the letters which were received by him from the opposite parties and thus, the allegation made by the opposite parties that the conduct of the petitioner in not replying to the various letters sent to him by the higher officers on 14.8.2008, 16.9.2008 and 4.10.2008 amounted to a grave misconduct is wholly incorrect. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that by the letter dated 11.11.2008 the petitioner did not restrain any officer or employee of the Mandi Parishad from inspecting the documents relating to the Mandi Parishad and by the said letter the petitioner had only provided that the documents of the Mandi Parishad may not be made available to anybody without the permission of the petitioner. Thus, the letter dated 11.11.2008 about which much hue and cry has been raised by the opposite parties was issued in the interest of the Mandi Parishad with a view to secure its records. 23. Thus, the letter dated 11.11.2008 about which much hue and cry has been raised by the opposite parties was issued in the interest of the Mandi Parishad with a view to secure its records. 23. The different documents annexed to the counter and rejoinder affidavits show that the assertions that the petitioner was not replying to the letters sent to him by the opposite parties and there had been a decrease in the income of the Mandi Parishad are not correct. There is material on record to show that the petitioner had immediately replied to the letters sent to him by the higher authorities, copies whereof have been appended as Annexures RA-3 to RA-5 to the rejoinder affidavit. 24. It has been vehemently argued by Sri Mathur that the Secretaries of ‘A’ class Mandi of Allahabad and Varanasi have also been transferred and the petitioner is not being victimized, however, there is no material on record to show that the Secretaries of Mandi Parishad, Allahabad and Varanasi have also been subjected to such frequent transfers as the petitioner. Thus, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the transfer of the petitioner is a routine transfer is totally unacceptable. 25. The instant case is a case which stands out as a glaring example of the extent to which an employer can go to harass an employee on one pretext or the other. Despite having advanced elaborate arguments, learned counsel for the opposite parties has failed to give any justification for 36 transfers to which the petitioner has been subjected during his service of 21 years with the opposite parties. The conduct of the opposite parties further shows that they have absolutely no respect or regard even for the undertaking given by them before the highest Court of the country that the petitioner shall be transferred only in accordance with law and the prevalent practice. 26. There is sufficient material on record to indicate that even after assuring the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the petitioner shall be transferred only in accordance with law and according to the prevalent practice, the petitioner has been subjected to about 16 transfers within last eleven years. 26. There is sufficient material on record to indicate that even after assuring the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the petitioner shall be transferred only in accordance with law and according to the prevalent practice, the petitioner has been subjected to about 16 transfers within last eleven years. The documents, which have been appended as Annexures A-1 to A-5 to the Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties justifying the transfer of the petitioner from Mandi Samiti, Kanpur to Mandi Samiti, Bharuwa Sumerpur within four months of his joining at Kanpur do not inspire the confidence of the Court and there is material on record to show that the petitioner had immediately replied to the letters sent to him by the higher authorities, copies whereof have been appended as Annexures RA-3 to RA-5 to the Rejoinder Affidavit. The opposite parties have not disputed the documents, which have been filed as Annexures RA-3 to RA-5 to the Rejoinder Affidavit filed by the petitioner. 27. The impugned transfer order passed by the opposite party No. 2 is a glaring example of blatant misuse of power by the State Authorities. The impugned order is also liable to be set aside on the last ground urged by the petitioner. 28. In the case of E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, AIR 1974 SC 555 (V 61 C 107), the Apex Court has held as under : ”It is an accepted principle that any public servant’s transfer is an incident of service. It is also an implied condition of service, the appointing authority has a wide discretion in the matter. The government is the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilize the services of its employees. However, this power must be exercised honestly, bonafide and reasonably.” 29. Keeping in view the frequent transfers of the petitioner within short span and the conduct of the opposite party No. 1 in resorting to all kinds of tactics to circumvent the orders of this Court as well as of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in favour of the petitioner as and when the petitioner challenged his transfer orders and obtained interim order from the Court, the instant transfer of the petitioner within four months of his joining at Kanpur, which is his fourth transfer in last three years, in my opinion, is not an honest, bonafide or reasonable exercise of power. 30. 30. The law is settled that frequent transfers do not serve the public interest. The opposite parties have miserably failed to demonstrate that the impugned transfer order has been passed on administrative grounds or in public interest. 31. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be quashed on the decision given by me on grounds No. (v) & (vi) on which the petitioner has challenged his transfer. 32. The writ petition is allowed and the order dated 15.11.2008 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) passed by the opposite party No. 2 is hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. ————