SC issues notice to UP govt. on transfer of bureaucrats

SC issues notice to UP govt. on transfer of bureaucrats The Supreme Court issued notices to both the Union and Mayawati-led U P governments on a petition challenging the wholesale transfer of IAS and IPS officers in Uttar Pradesh, following dismal performance of the ruling BSP in the State in the recently-held Lok Sabha elections. A vacation bench comprising Justices B Sudarshan Reddy and Aftab Alam also issued notices to the Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary after hearing former IAS officer Satya Narayan Shukla. Mr Shukla appeared in person and contended before the court that the large-scale transfers of senior bureaucrats in the state, particularly the demotion of State Principal Secretary Dinesh Singh by Chief Minister Mayawati was purely politically motivated and violated the All India Services Act and the Supreme Court’s judgment that senior bureaucrats must have a minimum tenure of two years and the transfer policy must conform to the laws laid down by the apex court in the matter of transfer. The petitioners also included former DGP, Uttar Pradesh Prakash Singh. According to the petitioner, Ms Mayawati had centralised all powers of transfer in herself after the poll debacle she faced and has resorted to large-scale politically motivated transfers of bureaucrats posted in the districts and constituencies from where the BSP candidates had lost. The petitioners also alleged that the suspension of senior IAS officer Ajay Kumar Mishra was also illegal. According to the petitioner, the state government, including Ms Mayawati, cannot be permitted to resort to wholesale transfer of senior bureaucrats, according to their whims and fancies. Ms Mayawati had transferred more than 100 senior IAS and IPS officers after her party was routed in the recently-concluded general elections and all candidates fielded by her who had a criminal background, were also defeated. The petitioners contended that the Mayawati government had made these transfers in violation of the Supreme Court judgments dated August 29, 2002 and April 22, 2005.