MD. QAISAR IQBAL ALI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the present writ petition has called in question the notification No. 6736/HUD dated 18.2.2013 (Annexure 1), by which he has been transferred from Bhubaneswar Development Authority (for short, 'the B.D.A. ') and posted as Planning Member of Sambalpur Development Authority (for short, 'the S.D.A. ') with additional charge of Secretary of Jharsuguda Regional Improvement Trust (for short, 'the JRIT ') and S.P.A., Deogarh until further orders.

(2.) THE grounds of challenge to the transfer order, as stated in the writ petition, are that in absence of uniform service condition governing all the staff of all the authorities under the Orissa Development Authorities Act, 1982 (for short, ' the Act '), the petitioner could not have been transferred from the B.D.A. to the S.D.A. The further ground taken in the writ petition is that the vires of the amendments brought to sub sections (3) and (4) of section 4 of the Act is under challenge before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 10095 of 2006 and W.P. (C) No. 9105 of 2007, which are pending adjudication. It is further stated in the writ petition that the constitutional validity of the Orissa Development Authorities (Amendment) Rules, 2010 is also under challenge in W.P. (C) No. 16460 of 2007 which were done to give effect to the amended provisions of section 4 of the Act. In essence, therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that the impugned transfer order is contrary to the rules and, hence, is required to be interfered with.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the opp. parties, which has been sworn to by the Senior Administrative Officer in the establishment of the B.D.A. and the said counter affidavit has been adopted by the opp. party no. 1 – State, who has filed a memorandum stating that the B.D.A. was authorized by the State to file the counter affidavit on behalf of the State also. The stand taken in the counter affidavit is that though the vires of the amended section 4 of the Act as well as the amended Rules have been challenged before this Court in various writ petitions, but the interim order of stay granted in one of the writ petitions with regard to operation of the amended provisions of the act and the Rules has been vacated by this Court and, there is no embargo in applying the said provisions for transferring the petitioner. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that there is no bar on the part of the Government to depute an Officer of a Development Authority to any other Authority for maintaining the transparency and the transfer is a policy of the Government for ensuring good governance. It is also stated that this is not the first time that the employees of the Development Authorities have been transferred. Prior to such transfer, many of the employees and Officers of the B.D.A. have been transferred to different Development Authorities. Details of such persons have been given in the counter affidavit.