D. K. ARORA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri R. C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anil Saran, learned Standing Counsel, Sri I. H. Farooqui, learned assistant Solicitor General of India for Union of India and Sri Pradeep Chandola, learned counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. ( 2 ) BY means of present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 7. 8. 2009 passed by the Union of India on the basis of recommendations of State of Advisory Committee dated 20. 2. 2009 and 9. 4. 2009 in its 68th and 69th meetings, by which the petitioner, who is working on the post of Publicity Inspector is sought to be transferred from the State of U. P. to the State of Uttarakhand alongwith other persons, who are posted and working on the post of Cane development Inspector. The petitioner is also challenging the consequential order of the State Government dated 27. 8. 2009 issued in furtherance of the order dated 7. 8. 2009, by which directions have been issued to the Cane Commissioner, U. P. , lucknow to comply with the order dated 7. 8. 2009 and subsequently, the Additional cane Commissioner (Administration) issued a letter to all Deputy Cane commissioner of the Region on 13. 1. 2009 to relieve the employees, who have been allocated to the State of Uttarakhand immediately. The petitioner has also assailed the consequential order dated 24. 10. 2009 issued by the Deputy Cane commissioner, Lucknow Region, Lucknow directing the petitioners to get himself relieved and submit his joining to the State of Uttarakhand in compliance of the orders of the State Government dated 14. 10. 2009 and 27. 8. 2009. ( 3 ) THE submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed in Subordinate Cane Service Group-ll in the pay scale of Rs. 280-450 alongwith other admissible allowances on ad-hoc basis vide order dated 10. 2. 1977. At the time of petitioners appointment, there were no rules governing conditions of service and the statutory rules i. e. U. P. Subordinate Cane Group-I and II General) Service Rules, 1979 promulgated and notified by the State Government on 19. 6. 1979 and before that no requisite qualification was prescribed for appointment in Group-D Subordinate Cane Service and before January, 1979 appointments were made of persons having different qualifications. 6. 1979 and before that no requisite qualification was prescribed for appointment in Group-D Subordinate Cane Service and before January, 1979 appointments were made of persons having different qualifications. As the petitioner was appointed on 10th February, 1977 on ad-hoc basis, as such, his services were required to be considered for regularization under U. P. Regularization of Adhoc Service Rules, 1979 as amended from time to time. Since the Cane commissioner U. P. has not taken any steps for regularization of the service of the petitioner even after passing of 16 years, the petitioner alongwith four others were constrained to approach U. P. State Public Service Tribunal by means of Claim petition No. 585 of 1994, Kushl anand Nautiyal and others v. State of U. P. and others and vide judgment and order dated 5. 2. 1997 the claim petition was allowed with the directions to the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioners for their regularization according to existing rules and also determine the seniority in their cadre according to existing rules within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the judgment by the opposite parties. When the judgment and order dated 5. 2. 1997 of the learned Tribunal was not complied the claim-petitioners preferred a Contempt Petition No. 8 of 1998, Kushlanand Nautiya and others v. Shri Siddhartha Behura and others. ( 4 ) IT is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that on the representation of the petitioner for compliance of order dated 5. 2. 1997 of the learned Tribunal, the Cane Commissioner after considering the record, passed an order dated 1. 1. 1998 thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization on the ground that though the appointment on the post of Publicity Inspector (Mechanical) have been made mentioning in the order that these posts are subordinate Cane Service Group-ll but these appointments have been made after keeping abeyance the post of subordinate Cane Service Group-ll. All the petitioners do not have the qualification of B. Sc. (Agriculture) and they have not been appointed as per the procedure prescribed under the service rules and as such on account of their having different qualifications and different mode of recruitment they cannot be treated as the part of the subordinate Cane Service Group-ll (General) and their seniority cannot be fixed after absorbing them in the said cadre. (Agriculture) and they have not been appointed as per the procedure prescribed under the service rules and as such on account of their having different qualifications and different mode of recruitment they cannot be treated as the part of the subordinate Cane Service Group-ll (General) and their seniority cannot be fixed after absorbing them in the said cadre. It was further mentioned by the Cane Commissioner that the State Government has sanctioned only one post of Publicity Inspector and against the said post, five persons are working and they can be given seniority after regularizing their services in the said cadre, only when the State Government grants permission for four additional posts and in view of these facts in compliance of the order of learned tribunal dated 5. 2. 1997, it is not possible to give seniority and regularized the petitioner on the post of Cane Development Inspector in the subordinate Cane service Group-ll (General ). ( 5 ) AFTER issuance of the notice in Contempt Petition No. 8 of 1998, the State government by means of Government Order dated 3564/c. D. /46-99-58 (33)/98 dated 29. 11. 1999 created 5 posts of Publicity Inspector (Mechanical) in equivalent pay-scale of Rs. 4500-7000 by keeping 5 posts of Cane Development Inspector of subordinate Cane Service Group-ll, in abeyance, in order to appoint/adjust the petitioner in compliance of the order passed in Claim Petition No. 585 of 1994, with the condition that after superannuation of these persons, the posts will be automatically abolished and the respective seniority of adjusted five petitioners in newly created post of Publicity Inspector (Mechanical) cadre will be fixed separately. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner and four other persons were regularized on newly created posts of Publicity Inspector (Mechanical) with effect from the date of judgment and order of learned Tribunal dated 5. 2. 1997 vide order dated 24. 2. 2000. The seniority of the petitioner and four other persons were fixed and issued in pursuance to the U. P. Government Servant Seniority Rules, 1991 vide order dated February 9th, 2001. ( 6 ) THE counsel for the petitioner further argued that the posts of Publicity inspector (Mechanical) were created in order to make compliance of the order of learned Tribunal and these are ex-cadre posts and will come to an end after retirement of said five persons. ( 6 ) THE counsel for the petitioner further argued that the posts of Publicity inspector (Mechanical) were created in order to make compliance of the order of learned Tribunal and these are ex-cadre posts and will come to an end after retirement of said five persons. The post of Publicity Inspector (Mechanical) has not been transferred to the newly created State of Uttarakhand, as no post of publicity Inspector (Mechanical) has been created in the State of Uttarakhand and the petitioner is sought to be transferred as Cane Development Inspector, which is not permissible under U. P. Reorganization Act or under any other law. The petitioner on coming to know about the impugned orders submitted a representation on 06. 11. 2009 before the Cane Commissioner, U. P. Lucknow mentioning therein that the petitioner has been given regular appointment on the post of Publicity Inspector (Mechanical) and this post has not been allocated to the State of Uttarakhand, as such, he cannot be sent to the State of Uttarakhand treating him as Cane Development Inspector, but no decision has been taken on the representation of the petitioner. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order reveals that the petitioner is being treated to be transferred to the State of Uttarakhand on the basis of domicile whereas the petitioner has never given any option nor any option was even sought from him and unilaterally the petitioner is being sent to the State of Uttarakhand. The impugned order has been served upon the petitioner, all of a sudden and his right to make representation under the Act as well as Circular issued from time to time by Union of India and the State Government have also been curtailed. ( 7 ) SRI Anil Saran, learned Standing Counsel admits the regularization of the petitioner in pursuance to the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 585 of 1994 by creating five posts of Publicity Inspector (Mechanical) after keeping in abeyance five posts of Cane Development Inspector of subordinate Cane Service Group-ll cadre. Shri Saran submits that the posts of publicity Inspector (Mechanical) is equivalent post to the post of Cane Development inspector of the subordinate Cane Service Group-ll cadre. Shri Saran submits that the posts of publicity Inspector (Mechanical) is equivalent post to the post of Cane Development inspector of the subordinate Cane Service Group-ll cadre. The petitioner belongs to subordinate Cane Service Group-ll and as per policy framed by the Government of India, the post of Cane Development Inspector of subordinate Cane Service group-ll cadre have been transferred to the State of Uttarakhand and the petitioner has no scope to challenge the policy decision taken by the State of U. P. as well as the Government of India. The petitioner has been transferred to the State of uttarakhand on the basis of his home district. ( 8 ) SRI Pradeep Chandola, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand submitted that there is no post of Publicity Inspector (Mechanical) in the State of uttarakhand. The work is done by the Cane Development Inspectors. ( 9 ) SRI I. H. Farooqui, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India place on record the instructions dated 10. 12. 2009 received from the Government of India, ministry of Personnel, P G and Pension, which says that no post with designation as Publicity Inspector (Mechanical) was mentioned in the Notification of bifurcation of posts issued by the U. P. Reorganization Coordination Department (UPRCD on 29. 12. 2003 in respect of Sugar Industry and Cane Development Department, U. P. The name of the petitioner was included as Cane Development Inspector in TFAL as a domicile issued by the UPRCD on 23. 3. 2004. The matter was considered by the State Advisory Committee in its meeting held on 20. 2. 2009 and was included for allocation to the State of Uttarakhand on domicile basis. No representation was received from the petitioner against TFAL. It is also mentioned in the said instructions that the Service Record of the State Government Employees is with the State of U. P. and the State Government is supposed to prepare TFAL after undergoing the entire service record of the persons concerned and the Central government works on the presumption that the basic date provided by the State is correct. ( 10 ) I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the respective parties and gone through the record of the writ petition. ( 11 ) IT is admitted position that the petitioner was appointed on 10. 2. ( 10 ) I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the respective parties and gone through the record of the writ petition. ( 11 ) IT is admitted position that the petitioner was appointed on 10. 2. 1977 on ad-hoc basis and in order to make compliance of the judgment and order dated 5. 2. 1997 of the learned U. P. State Public Services Tribunal passed in Claim Petition no. 585 of 1994, Kushlanand Nautiyal and others v. Stafe of U. P. and others, five posts were created vide Government Order dated 29. 11. 1999 by keeping five posts of Cane Development Inspector of subordinate Cane Service Grade-ll in abeyance with the condition that after superannuation of the claim-petitioners, the posts will be automatically abolished and the respective seniority of the claimpetitioners in the newly created posts of Publicity Inspector (Mechanical) cadre will be fixed separately (Annexure-CA-2 to the counter affidavit ). Vide order dated 24. 2. 2000, the services of the petitioner alongwith four other persons were regularized on newly created posts of Publicity Inspector (Mechanical) with effect from the date of judgment and order of learned Tribunal dated 5. 2. 1997 and subsequently vide order dated 9. 2. 2001 seniority of the petitioner and four other persons was fixed. ( 12 ) FROM perusal of the record, it transpires that undisputedly the post of publicity Inspector (Mechanical) is different than the post of Cane Development inspector having its separate seniority list. It is also admitted position that no post of Publicity Inspector (Mechanical) in the State of Uttarakhand has been created and the State Government recommended the name of the petitioner alongwith others treating him to be working on the post of Cane Development inspector. ( 13 ) THE submission of the learned Standing Counsel that Publicity Inspector (Mechanical) is equivalent to the post of Cane Development Inspector of subordinate cane Service Group-ll and as per policy framed by the Government of India the posts have been transferred to the State of Uttarakhand, has no force. ( 13 ) THE submission of the learned Standing Counsel that Publicity Inspector (Mechanical) is equivalent to the post of Cane Development Inspector of subordinate cane Service Group-ll and as per policy framed by the Government of India the posts have been transferred to the State of Uttarakhand, has no force. As per rule 3 (h) of U. P. Subordinate Cane (Group I and II General) Services Rules, 1979 the group-ll (General) posts means the posts of Cane Development Inspector, assistant Cane Protection Inspector, Manure Inspector and Publicity Inspector (Journalist) and strength of service of each category of posts have been provided under the Appendix-b of the Rules and nowhere the post of Publicity Inspector (Mechanical) is mentioned. ( 14 ) AT this juncture, reference can be made to the order dated 1. 1. 1998 of the cane Commissioner, which was passed on the representation of the petitioner for compliance of order dated 5. 2. 1997 of the learned Tribunal and while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization on the ground that though the appointment on the post of Publicity Inspector (Mechanical) has been made mentioning in the order that these posts are subordinate Cane Service Group-ll, but these appointments have been made after keeping in abeyance the posts of subordinate cane Service Group-ll and the petitioners do not have qualification of B. Sc. (Agriculture) and they have not been appointed as per the procedure prescribed under the Rules and, as such, on account of their having different qualifications and different mode of recruitment, they cannot be treated as part of the subordinate cane Service Group-ll (General) and their seniority cannot be fixed after absorbing them in the said cadre. Perhaps for this very reason, the State Government created new five posts of Publicity Inspector (Mechanical) by keeping five posts of Cane development Inspector in abeyance vide order dated 29. 11. 1999 with the condition that after superannuation of the claim-petitioners the posts will automatically be abolished and their seniority in newly created posts of Publicity Inspector (Mechanical) cadre will be fixed separately and finally. The petitioner and four other persons were regularized by means of order dated 24. 2. 2000 and the seniority of the said five persons were issued separately vide order dated 9. 2. The petitioner and four other persons were regularized by means of order dated 24. 2. 2000 and the seniority of the said five persons were issued separately vide order dated 9. 2. 2001 and, therefore, the petitioner and four other persons may notionally be working in the status of subordinate Cane Service Group-ll (General), cannot fall within the common seniority list of subordinate Cane Service Group-ll (General) for the purposes of allocation of the employees of Cane Development Department to the state of Uttarakhand especially when there is no post of Publicity Inspector (Mechanical) has been created in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner and other similarly situated persons farms a part of ex-cadre posts which will come to an end after retirement of the concerned persons. ( 15 ) THE instructions given by the Union of India to the learned Assistant solicitor General of India also reveals that no posts with the designation of Publicity inspector (Mechanical) has been mentioned in the notification of bifurcation of posts issued by the U. P. Reorganization Coordination Development Department on 29. 12. 2003 in respect of Sugar Industry and Cane Development Department of u. P. and the name of the petitioner was included as Cane Development Inspector in TFAL as a domicile issued by the U. P. Reorganization Coordination Department. ( 16 ) IN view of the above, it is established that the name of the petitioner has been included as Cane Development Inspector, on which post, admittedly the petitioner is not working and since the post of Publicity Inspector (Mechanical) is not included in the notification of bifurcation of posts, as such, inclusion of name of the petitioner as Cane Development Inspector was illegal and against the record and the allocation order of the petitioner to the State of Uttarakhand as Cane development Inspector has also been passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind, which deserves to be quashed. ( 17 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition is allowed. The writ in the nature of certiorari is issued thereby quashing the allocation order dated 7. 8. 2009 of the petitioner to the State of Uttarakhand on the post of Cane Development Inspector as well as consequential orders dated 27. 8. 2009,13. 10. 2009,14. 10. 2009 and 24. 10. 2009 are also quashed so far as the same relate to the petitioner. 8. 2009 of the petitioner to the State of Uttarakhand on the post of Cane Development Inspector as well as consequential orders dated 27. 8. 2009,13. 10. 2009,14. 10. 2009 and 24. 10. 2009 are also quashed so far as the same relate to the petitioner. The opposite parties will allow the petitioner to work on the post of Publicity Inspector (Mechanical) in the State of U. P. ( 18 ) THERE shall be no order as to costs. .