Point of Law : Impugned directive of Election Commission is valid as it does not discriminate between different officers but a uniform directive has been issued for all officers who have completed four years of stay in same district, to move out.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. K. Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.5, Mr. Akhilesh Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and Mr. S.C. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has assailed the order dated 7th January, 2022 passed by the Additional Director of Education (Basic), Shiksha Nideshalaya, Prayagraj i.e. respondent no.3 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner has been transferred from District Kanpur Nagar to Sambhal. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to permit the petitioner to work as Block Development Officer, Block Kalyanpur,District Kanpur Nagar.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the selection made by the U.P. Public Service Commission dated 31st March, 1998, petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of Assistant Basic Education Officer under the handicapped category as he is having 40% of locomotor disability. Thereafter the petitioner has been promoted on the post of Block Education Officer. By the order dated 30th June, 2015, the petitioner has been transferred from Block Kanpur Dehat to Block Ghatampur of District Kanpur Nagar and thereafter transferred from Block Ghatampur to Kalyanpur of District Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 9th February, 2016 and since then he is working on the said post at the same block i.e. Kalyanpur, Kanpur Dehat (reference paragraph-4 of the present writ petition). Vide order dated 7th January, 2022 passed by respondent no.3, the petitioner has been transferred from District Kanpur Nagar to District Sambhal. It is against this order of transfer that the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that appointing authority of the petitioner, who is working as Block Education Officer, which is the post of Group-B officer, is the Director of Education (Basic), U.P. at Lucknow i.e. respondent no.2, whereas the impugned order of transfer has been passed by the Additional Director of Education (Basic), Shiksha Nideshalaya, Prayagraj i.e. respondent no.3, therefore, the same is illegal and without jurisdiction. In support of his plea, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of a Division Bench of Lucknow Bench of this Court in the case of Muneem Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. Thru, Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Lko. & Others (Service Bench No. 14485 of 2017 decided on 7th July, 2017), wherein it has been held that the Director of Education (Basic) is the head of department of Basic Education of the State of U.P., therefore, he has the power to transfer any employee/officer working on the post of Group-B. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance upon an interlocutory order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 2nd August, 2017 passed in the case of Ramesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others (Writ-A No. 34158 of 2017), whereby the Division Bench, on the ground of jurisdiction/authority has stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 21st July, 2017, whereby a District Basic Education Officer has transferred the petitioner of that writ petition, who was posted as Block Education Officer i.e. Class-II/Group-B post. Prima facie, the Writ Court had also firmed an opinion that the District Basic Education Officer has no authority to transfer an employee posted on Group-B/Class-II post, he has only authority to transfer a Class-III employee. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the Government Order dated 29th March, 2018, a disabled person like the petitioner cannot be transferred to any other place unless or until he has given his consent. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after enforcement of Model Code of Conduct, no transfer order is permissible. On the cumulative strength of the