By the Court.—The Special Appeal arises from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5 December 2013, allowing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and setting aside an order of transfer issued in respect of the services of the respondent, who was working as a Cane Supervisor.

2. The respondent was initially appointed on 24 June 1980 as Ganna Gram Sewak, which post was merged with the post of Cane Supervisor on 10 June 1988. On 30 August 1994, the respondent was posted in the office of the District Cane Officer, Mau where-after with effect from 2 September 2002, he was again posted in the office of the District Cane Officer, Azamgarh. The respondent admittedly worked for a period of about eleven years in the office of the District Cane Officer at Azamgarh until an order of transfer was issued on 28 May 2013 posting him from district Azamgarh to district Balrampur.

3. Taking into consideration a letter of the Deputy Cane Commissioner dated 29 May 2013, which highlighted the need to retain the respondent in view of an ensuing CAG Audit, the order of transfer was held in abeyance on 31 May 2013. Thereafter, with the approval of the State Government which was communicated on 28 June 2013, the order dated 31 May 2013 holding the transfer in abeyance was cancelled and the order of transfer was restored. An application was submitted by the spouse of the respondent seeking cancellation of the order of transfer of the respondent to Balrampur stating that she had two married daughters and was suffering from Blood Pressure and Diabetes. Following this representation, the State Government approved the transfer of the respondent to a nearby district and, accordingly, by an order of the Cane Commissioner dated 31 July 2013, the respondent was posted to district Mau under the same commissary in place of district Balrampur as was originally envisaged.

4. The learned Judge interfered with the order of transfer in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by the judgment, which is called in question in appeal by the State. The original record was summoned by the learned Judge. The judgment records that a letter dated 21 May 2013 was received from one Sri Awdhesh Mishra, President, of the Association, Ganna Vikas Samiti, U.P. in which he had alleged that the respondent as a Cane Supervisor at Azamgarh, had developed contacts and connections with the Cane Mafia’s which was resulting in the harassment of farmers. On this letter, an endorsement was made by the Principal Secretary, Sugar Development on 21 May 2013 directing that the respondent should be placed out of the district.

5. On 28 May 2013, the Principal Secretary, who was also, according, to the learned Single Judge holding the charge of the post of Cane Commissioner, issued a formal order of transfer. On these facts, the learned Single Judge took the view that the Principal Secretary acted on receiving the letter dated 21 May 2013 without application of mind. In regard to the subsequent order, which was passed on the representation of the spouse of the respondent, the learned Judge recorded the admission of the Standing Counsel that “there was no provision under which a representation of the spouse of the employee could be entertained”. Thus, both the original order of transfer and the modified order have been quashed and set aside.

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that; (i) the respondent had been posted at Azamgarh from 1980 to 1994 and once again for eleven years from September 2002 till May, 2013; (ii) there was nothing incorrect or contrary to law with the Principal Secretary acting on the representation, which was submitted to him by the President of the Association, Ganna Vikas Samiti, U.P., particularly having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. and others, (2007) 8 SCC 150; (iii) the State has in fact acted fairly in entertaining th