S.S.Sandhawalia, J.

1. Whether, the power to transfer an employee of one Market Committee to another within the State, expressly conferred on the Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board by Rule 64 (ii)(c) of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1975 , is ultra vires of the parent Act-has come to be the primarily significant question in this set of three writ petitions, now referred for an authoritative decision by a Full Bench. Equally at issue is that correctnema of the earlier Division Bench decision in Krishna Kumar Shrivastava V/s. The State Agricultural Marketing Board and Ors. 1984 Labour and Industrial Cases 931.

2. The representative matrix of facts may be taken from Dhirendra Kumar Akela V/s. The Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board and Ors. Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 884 of 1983. The petitioner therein was appointed as a Typist by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Dinapore, on the 21st of April, 1979, and, it is averred on his behalf that thereafter he is continuing to perform his duties satisfactorily. However, by the impugned order dated the 14th January, 1983 (Annexure 1), the Secretary of the Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board), directed the transfer of the petitioners services from the Dinapore Market Committee to the Arrah Market Committee. The gravamen of the petitioners case is that he was an employee of the Dinapore Agricultural Produce Market Committee, which is a statutory body, and, there is no power or authority in the Board to transfer the petitioners services to a different statutory body, like that of the Arrah Agricultural Produce Market Committee. On these premises the impugned order of transfer is sought to be assailed as wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.

3. In the return filed on behalf of Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, the stand taken is that though under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Act), each Market Committee is a corporate body, yet it is wholly subservient and subordinate to the Board, which is the apex body at State level. It is stated that the very purpose of the establishment of the Board under Sec.33A of the Act is to exercise stringent superintendence and control over the Market Committees throughout the State. A reference is made to the various provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder to highlight the fact that the functioning of the Market Committees including the service conditions of their staff and the employees is wholly under the control of the Board and consequently under the express powers conferred by Rule 64 (ii)(c) of the Rules, those employees are transferable from one Market Committee to another.

4. These cases originally came up for hearing before a Division Bench and firm reliance on behalf of the petitioners was placed on Krishna Kumar Shrivastava V/s. The Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board and Ors. (supra). However, on behalf of the respondent Board a frontal challenge was laid to correctness of the view on the ground that the material provision of Rule 64(ii)(c) had gone unnoticed and the judgment had been rendered per incuriam. In view of the importance of the issue and the merit of the challenge raised, these cases were, therefore, referred for decision by a larger Bench.

5. However, when the matter originally came up before us, Mr. K.D. Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the petitioners, sought to assail the very validity and the vires of Rule 64 (ii)(c) of the Rules, and, since that had not been expressly pleaded in the writ petition, he sought leave to amend the same, which was granted, Supplementary affidavits have now been filed, assailing Rule 64 (ii)(c) of the Rules as being ultra vires the Act, and, as required, the State of Bihar has been impleaded as a party.

6. Since admittedly the whole controversy herein focusses on Rule 64, it is apt to read the relevant part thereof at the very outset, with particular reference t