A person must have suffered a legal injury to challenge an action, and the transfer of a government servant is within the domain of the state government based on administrative exigency and public interest.

Anil Kumar, J.

Heard Sri Shyam Mohan, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Badrul Hasan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and perused the record.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 31.08.2015 passed by respondent No. 1 by which respondent No. 5/Sri Sudhir Kumar Srivastava who is working on the post of Assistant Development Officer, Panchayat at Allahabad in the Panchayat Raj Department, State of U.P. has been transferred on the said post to Lakhimpur Kheri.

3. Sri Shyam Mohan, learned counsel for petitioner while challenging the impugned order submits that as there is no post of Assistant Development Officer, Panchayat, is vacant in Kheri, so there is no justification or reason on the part of respondent No. 1 to transfer respondent No. 5/Sri Sudhir Kumar Srivastava.

4. Next argument advanced by learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner being the senior-most person working on the post of Assistant Development Officer, Panchayat at Lakhimpur Kheri has been given the charge of the post of District Panchayat Raj Officer and in case respondent No. 5/Sri Sudhir Kumar Srivastava is posted, he should be debarred from the said charge, so the order dated 31.08.2015 is liable to be set aside.

5. Sri Badrul Hasan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel while defending the impugned order submits that by means of the said order respondent No. 5/Sri Sudhir Kumar Srivastava has been posted as Assistant Development Officer, Panchayat at Lakhimpur Kheri in the administrative exigency of services and he has already taken over the charge on the said post.

6. He further submits that respondent No. 5/Sri Sudhir Kumar Srivastava is senior to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Development Officer, Panchayat and his name find place in the seniority-list at serial No. 78 whereas the name of the petitioner find place in the said seniority-list at serial No. 174. And the petitioner who is working and discharging his duties on the post of Assistant Development Officer, Panchayat at Lakhimpur Kheri will be allowed to work and discharge his duties in the said capacity and will be paid salary and other allowances for which he is entitled, accordingly, it is submitted by learned State counsel that the petitioner has got no locus/right to challenge the impugned order dated 31.08.2015 (Annexure No. 1) passed by respondent No. 1.

7. After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the record, the first question which to be considered is that whether the petitioner has any locus/right, suffer a legal injury in order to enable him to challenge the order dated 31.08.2015 (Annexure No. 1) passed by respondent No. 1 thereby transferring respondent No. 5/Sri Sudhir Kumar Srivastava as Assistant Development Officer, Panchayat at Lakhimpur Kheri.

8. Hon'ble Apex court in Civil Appeal No. 7728 of 2012 the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. decided on 08.11.2012, as under: -

"7. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons.

Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the Authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of su