NEELAM TEJI Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner challenged the Order vide No.PERS -70/2009 dated 19.03.2012(Annexure -IV to the writ petition), whereby the State respondents(respondent Nos.1 and 2) partially modified the transfer Order vide No.PERS - 08/2010/1094 dated 09.03.2012(Annexure -I to the writ petition) in respect of the petitioner and respondent No.3, alleging that the impugned order dated 19.03.2012 has been issued by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to favour respondent No.3 maliciously, violating the principles of natural justice and also violating the transfer policy adopted by the respondents, illegally and arbitrarily.

(2.) IN a short compass, the case of the petitioner is that he is a member of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Service (in short, APCS) and at the relevant point of time he was posted as Officer on Special Duty(OSD) as Protocol Officer in the Department of Protocol, Government of Arunachal Pradesh at Itanagar. By transfer Order, dated 09.03.2012, he was transferred and posted as Circle Officer cum Block Development Officer(for short, CO cum BDO) at Yachuli vice respondent No.3, who was on promotion from the post of C.O. cum B.D.O., Yachuli posted as Extra Assistant Commissioner(for short, EAC) in D.C.'s office, Bomdila. Immediately after order dated 09.03.2012 was issued by the Chief Secretary, the petitioner submitted his joiningreport as C.O. cum B.D.O., Yachuli in the Lower Subansiri District, Ziro, on 13.03.2012, in the office of the Deputy Commissioner but his joining report was not accepted and he was asked to submit his release order from the office of the Department of Protocol, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the Department of Protocol i.e. his earlier place of posting for his release and the Department, accordingly, issued release order No.AP/PD/ ESTT/ OSD(P) -41/2009 dated 19.03.2012(Annexure -III to the writ petition) and, with that release order the petitioner joined his duties as C.O. cum B.D.O., Yachuli on 20.03.2012. On his joining in the post of C.O. cum B.D.O., as aforesaid, the In -charge Deputy Commissioner, Yachuli vide Memo. No.YCL/ESTT -01/ 2011 -12/1122 -25 dated 20.03.2012(Annexure -V to the writ petition) accepted the joining report of the petitioner and, accordingly, the petitioner started discharging his duties. To his utter surprise, the State respondent, i.e. the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, vide Order No.PERS -70/2009 dated 19.03.2012(Annexure -IV to the writ petition) modified the transfer order in respect of the petitioner and respondent No.3, and thereby, retained respondent No.3 as EAC cum BDO of Yachuli and the petitioner has been directed to continue as Protocol Officer, Itanagar in his earlier post. The petitioner challenged the order dated 19.03.2012, alleging that the order was issued mala fide with a view to somehow accommodaterespondent No.3 at Yachuli and that the order suffers from favouritism and nepotism, as well, an arbitrary action of the State respondents and, therefore, the petitioner approached this Court for cancellation of order dated 19.03.2012(Annexure -IV to the writ petition).

(3.) RESPONDENT Nos.1 and 2, by filing counter affidavit, contended that the order dated 09.03.2012 was issued in the public interest and, subsequently, order dated 19.03.2012 was also issued in the public interest by the State respondents in a routine process and, there was no point of any favouritism, nepotism or mala fide as alleged by the petitioner. It is the prerogative of the State respondents to utilize the services of the public servants in the public interest as and when and where necessary and that, order dated 09.03.2012 was modified on 19.03.2012 before joining of the petitioner in the transferred post at Yachuli. It is further contended by the State respondents that the contention of the petitioner that he joined the post of CO cum BDO, Yachuli on 13.03.2012 is false in view of the fact that he has applied to his authority i.e. the State Protocol Officer for his release only on 14.03.2012 and, therefore, his contention that he joined the post of CO cum BDO, Yachuli on 13.03.2012 is nothing but a false statement made by him and, since he made a false statement, he cannot be favoured with an order by a court of equity. It is also contended that the State respondents, being the authority of the petitioner, in the exigencies of publicinterest, passed the transfer order and subsequently modified the same and since there was no mala fide, the order passed by the State respondents cannot be interfered.