( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned transfer order dated 8. 12. 1999 copy of which is Annexurc-1 to the petition. By that order the petitioner who was District Supply officer, Meerut was transferred to the headquarter at Lucknow.

( 2 ) IN this case on 19. 1. 2000 we passed the following interim order :

"heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Chief Standing Counsel. The petitioner has challenged the transfer order dated 8. 12. 1999, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner is District Supply Officer, Meerut. By the impugned transfer order, he has been transferred from Meerut to the head quarter at Lucknow. Annexure-2 is copy of the letter dated 1. 12. 1999 sent by a local MLA Sri Atul Kumar to the Minister of Food and Civil Supply, government of U. P. in which it has been written that the petitioner does not give importance to mlas and he is lodging false cases against businessmen, and therefore, he should be immediately removed from Meerut and one Sri Mohan Singh should be posted as District Supply officer, Meerut, since Sri Singhs functioning is in accordance with the policy of the B. J. P. However, the District Magistrate. Meerut, in his letter dated 10. 12. 1999 has written to the secretary, Food and Civil Supply Department. U. P. that the petitioner is doing good work and he has greatly improved the functioning of the office of the District Supply Officer and there is no complaint against him. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred by the impugned order. We are prima facie of the opinion that the petitioners transfer was because of the aforesaid letter of the MLA. A large number of petitions are coming up before this Court challenging transfer orders of government servants at the behest of politicians. We are distressed to note that over the last few decades there has been continuous politicalisation of the bureaucracy, and harassment of the government servants due to political interference. Under the Constitutional Scheme relating to government servants, as implicit in Part XIV of the Constitution, the Government servants should be politically neutral in discharging their duties. No doubt the Government may formulate policies and it is the undoubted duty of Government servants to faithfully implement these policies (provided they are not illegal or unconstitutional) even if the Government servants disagree with the said policies, but the Government servants should not be politically allied with any party. Under the British pattern of administration which we have adopted under our constitution it is implicit that while the Minister can lay down the policy (which has to be implemented by the Government servants), there should not be day-to-day interference with the routine matters of the department by the Minister. In particular, transfers and postings of government servants is in the discretion of the Senior Officer of the concerned department, who has to pass such orders on administrative grounds only and not for political, caste, monetary or other extraneous consideration. It is regrettable that over several decades there has been undue political interference in the bureaucracy due to which standards and independence of the bureaucracy have been adversely affected. Frequent transfers in fact demoralize the working of the Government servants, besides imposing an extra financial burden on the depleted State exchequer. We are deeply distressed to know from media reports (in T. V. and newspapers) that transfers will not be made on the recommendations of the local unit of the ruling party. This is wholly unconstitutional. The time has, therefore, now come to lay down proper guidelines by the Court in this connection. We propose to do so in this case. However, before doing so, we grant the learned Chief Standing Counsel three weeks time to file a counter-affidavit. List as part-heard before us on 14. 2. 2000, on which date the Chief Secretary himself shall file