Ratul Neog vs State of Assam and Others

Aftab H. Saikia, J.—Heard Mr. S. Medhi, learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. V.M. Thomas, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department representing the official respondents/State of Assam and others and also heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N. Sarma, learned Counsel representing the Respondent No. 5.

The legality and correctness of the order dated 31.7.08 passed by the writ court in W. P. (C) No. 1160/08 has been assailed in this instant writ appeal.

The appellant herein, who was working as Lecturer in District Institution of Education and Training (for short, ''DIET''), Samuguri, Nagaon was transferred vide order dated 14.3.08 to his new place of posting as Lecturer in DIET, Chabua, Dibrugarh. On the other hand by the same order the Respondent No. 4, who was working as Lecturer, DIET at Morigaon, was transferred to Samuguri, Nagaon in place of the appellant and Respondent No. 5 who was working at Chabua, Dibrugarh, was transferred to DIET, Morigaon district in place of Respondent No. 4.

Being aggrieved by the said impugned transfer, the appellant approached the writ court by initiating a writ proceeding through W.P. (C) No. 1160/08 and the learned Single Judge having entertained the writ petition and also upon hearing learned Counsel representing the parties vide order dated 31.7.08 dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant as petitioner could not make out a case with good ground for interfering with the impugned transfer order as it was the right of the State to post their employees as per their discretion for best utilization of their services. It was further held by the court that the appellant failed to demonstrate that any of his enforceable rights had been violated by the impugned transfer order.

We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments canvassed by the learned Counsel representing the appellant as well as the respondents.

It appears that the impugned order of transfer was not passed in violation of any Statutory Rules nor it was a case of frequent transfer or malafide.

It is established that transfer is an incidence of service and it is within the domain of the State to utilize the services of its employees according to its discretion as regards posting and transfer in the public interest.

It is also established that a transfer order is permitted to be challenged on one of the following grounds, namely--

i) Violation of Statutory Rules or

ii) Frequent transfer or

iii) Malafide.

In the instant case, we do not find availability of any of the grounds as mentioned above so as to disturb the impugned transfer order.

That being so, we are of the view that this writ appeal is bereft of any merit.

Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed at the admission stage itself.