JUDGMENT

MOHAN, J.—Leave granted.

2. Both these appeals arise out of the dismissal of Civil Misc, Writ Petition Nos. 24720 of 1992 and 32100 of 1992 filed by the appellant herein before the High Court of Allahabad.

3. The short facts are as under:

In terms of G.O. No. 2626/30-3-84-32-G.E/72 dated September 17, 1984 the post of Additional Transport Commissioner in Uttar Pradesh Government Services is to be filled in by promotion from among the senior most Deputy Transport Commissioners who have completed five years continuous service as such. Initially, the senior most Deputy Transport Commissioner is appointed ad hoc and promoted to the post of Joint Secretary (Transport) which is an ex-cadre post in the Secretariat. Thereafter, he is posted as Additional Transport Commissioner. In accordance with this procedure, the appellant who was the senior most Deputy Transport Commissioner was promoted to the post of Joint Secretary (Transport). He continued on that post till September 11, 1990. The post of Joint Secretary is a secretarial post while the post of Additional Transport Commissioner is a departmental post.

4. During the tenure of the appellant as Joint Secretary, one Shri R.D. Mishra was the Additional Transport Commissioner. Admittedly, the said Shri R.D. Mishra was senior to the appellant. Shri R.D. Mishra retired in August 1990. In that vacancy, the appellant was appointed as Additional Transport Commissioner by an order dated September 11, 1990. He continued to work as Additional Transport Commissioner. However, by an order dated July 8, 1992, he was again posted back to the post of Joint Secretary. On July 10, 1992, Shri O.S. Gahalaut was appointed as Additional Transport Commissioner.

5. These two orders were challenged in Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 24720 of 1992 and 32100 of 1992 respectively. The challenge was on two grounds. One the appellant would not oblige Dr Om Parkash, the Transport Commissioner who wanted an officer of his own choice as Additional Transport Commissioner. The said Om Parkash ever since the day he became the Transport Commissioner was trying to oust the Appellant from the post of Additional Transport Commissioner as he did not yield to the pressures exerted by Dr Om Parkash to do illegal works particularly in relation to appointment of the subordinate staff. When the appellant refused to make these illegal appointments which were recommended by Dr Om Parkash, he was warned of dire consequences.

6. The second ground of challenge was that it was a demotion though parity of pay might have been maintained. Accordingly, the writ of certiorari was sought for in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24720 of 1992.

7. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32100 of 1992, the challenge was by means of quo warranto restraining respondent 4 from functioning as Additional Transport Commissioner. According to the appellant, respondent 4 was junior to him. Therefore, he could not be posted as Additional Transport Commissioner. The fact that the order of transfer of the appellant came to be passed on July 8, 1992 and on July 10, 1992, in that vacancy, respondent 4 was appointed as Additional Transport Commissioner will clearly establish that the Selection Committee had no occasion to meet and consider the case of respondent 4 for promotion as Additional Transport Commissioner. This was done in undue haste in clear violation of service rules with a view to accommodate respondent 4. The Transport Commissioner also did not obtain orders from the Governor in this behalf and he himself passed the orders in favour of respondent 4.

8. The High Court of Allahabad dismissed the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24720 of 1992 on the ground that by the impugned order of transfer of the appellant, there was no demotion. In any event, the Governor had the requisite power under Clause 2(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental (Second Amendment) Rules, 1981 to transfer a government servant in public interest to a post of another cadre or to an ex-ca