RAM HARI SEN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against issuance of an order of transfer by the respondent authority being the order dated 14th February, 2008. Grievance of the petitioner, as ventilated in the instant application, may briefly be stated as follows:-By an appointment letter dated 21st October, 1982 the petitioner, who was working as a Casual Attendant, was appointed in the post of Attendant w. e. f. 1st of October, 1982. He was transferred in 1988 to Kolaghat Milk Chilling Plant. On 15th April, 1988, he faced an accident due to chemical verge. After a few days, he had to be admitted to S. S. K. M.

(2.) HOSPITAL where he had to undergo plastic surgery. The petitioner was once again transferred to its Head Office. In 1998, he was transferred to Chandrakana Milk Chilling Plant and from there, to Sabang Milk Chilling Plant vide order of transfer dated 14th February, 2008. The petitioner submitted a representation before respondent No. 6 stating therein that his place of transfer is about 110 k. m. away from his residence and in view of the major operation the petitioner had to undergo, he sought for withdrawal of the said order of transfer.

(3.) THE respondent authority, however, failed to consider the grievance of the petitioner in its proper perspective. By filing a Supplementary Affidavit, the petitioner claimed that the grievance of the petitioner can very well be entertained by this writ Court since the functions and duties of the respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 6 come within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Under the usual norms and guidelines, the respondent No. 6 is appointed by the Chairman of the Midnapore Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited i. e. , the District Magistrate of Paschim Midnapore. Besides, the Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited is partly run by the financial aid of West Bengal Milk Federation, which is a Government undertaking Body/organization under the State of West Bengal. After hearing learned Counsel for both parties and having regard to the materials available on record, it appears that the crux of the controversy is whether the present application is maintainable or not.