Manuranjan Nath vs State Of Assam And 6 Ors

A.S. Bopanna, CJ

Heard Mr. P.J. Phukan and Mr. H. Baruah, learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.K. Dey, learned counsel for Respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr. J. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council for Respondents No.3 to 5.

The instant review petition is filed by the appellant in W.A. No.28 of 2014 seeking review of the order dated 6.5.2015 passed in the said appeal. The review petitioner was initially before this Court in W.P.(C) No.2434/2010 assailing the order dated 20.03.2010 by which the private respondent herein was transferred to the post where the review petitioner was discharging his function and the review petitioner was by the same order displaced therefrom.

When the petition came up for consideration before the Court on 25.11.2013, the learned Single Judge had taken note that the purpose for which the review petitioner was posted is over and, in that light, has disposed of the petition. Needless to mention, as indicated from the order itself, there was no representation on behalf of the review petitioner. The review petitioner, therefore, claiming to be aggrieved was before a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the intra-court appeal in W.A. No.28/2014. The Coordinate Bench through its order dated 06.05.2015 had adverted to this aspect of the matter and had taken note that the order impugned in the writ petition was already given effect and subsequent thereto, the private respondent got released from his post and had even joined the new assignment. In that light, the Coordinate Bench was also of the opinion that the dispute in-fact had become infructuous and there is no infirmity in the order under challenge. On the aspect that during consideration of the writ petition and the writ appeal, the order of transfer had already spent itself, there is no serious dispute.

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the learned Single Judge, as also the Coordinate Bench had actually not noticed the basis on which the order of transfer has been assailed by the appellant. In that light, it is contended that in respect of certain appointments made by the Autonomous Council of Karbi Anglong, a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sunanda Gogoi and others Vs. State of Assam and others, 2009 (1) GLT 218, had found that the appointments as made is contrary to the established position of the selection process and, in that view, about 267 or more teachers who were appointed was directed to be treated as irregular. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that the private respondent herein was one of the person who had thus been appointed and, in that view the order dated 19.11.2008 passed by the Inspector of Schools, Karbi Anglong District, in compliance of the said order declaring the appointments as not being regular if taken note, the private respondent, in any event, could not have been continued in service and, therefore, the private respondent could not have also been posted to the place where the petitioner was working as he was not a person in service. In that view, it is contended that such order of transfer made to displace the appellant is not justified. He, therefore, contends that the said aspect of the matter be taken note and the order passed in the writ appeal be reviewed.

Though such contention is put forth, what is necessary to be taken note is that the prayer in the writ petition was limited to challenging the order of transfer by which inter-change of post has been made. In a matter of the present nature, though such contention has been put forth in the petition, the prayer/relief was also required to be sought against the continuance of the private respondent. If in that light material was placed to indicate that he was one among the person who has been effected by the order dated 19.11.2008 and was not in service in any manner, the respondents could have responded. In that circumstance, when the challenge was only to the transfer order and the transfer as made therein had spent itself, the Coordinate Bench was justified in observing that the writ petition as also the writ appeal was rendered infructuous which is justified.

However, if the review petitioner has any other remedy on a different cause of action relating to such appointment, it is open to the review petitioner to avail the remedy in accordance with law.

The review petition is, accordingly, disposed of.