Trilochan Pradhan vs State Of Odisha And Others

The challenge before the learned Single Judge by the Appellant was to an order whereby the earlier order permitting mutual transfer of the Appellant and Respondent No.7, was recalled.

As noted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 17th January, 2023 after the initial recommendation made by the authorities accepting the request for mutual transfer, Respondent No.7 filed a representation for cancellation of the mutual transfer order. In other words, Respondent No.7 was not willing to go through with the transfer, which would mean that Respondent No.7 would not come in the place of the Appellant when he would go to Nayagarh in her place.

As further correctly observed by the learned Single Judge, this being a case of mutual transfer, if one of the parties resiles then the mutual transfer cannot go through.

It was then argued that once an undertaking had been given in the application for mutual transfer then it was binding on Respondent No.7 who should not be allowed to resile from the consent already conveyed by her.

The consent for mutual transfer cannot be viewed as non-variable. It cannot be elevated to the status of an irrevocable promise or contract. Further, the request for mutual transfer, can be made even in future as long as another person is willing come to the place where the Appellant is stationed.

Consequently, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the Single Judge. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

……………………………..