K.K. HAZARIKA Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by an Executive Engineer in Rural Works Department (RWD), Changlang so as to challenge the Order dated 11.4.2013 issued by the Secretary, RWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. By this impugned order the writ petitioner has been transferred from Changlang Division to Pasighat. He has been posted in the Office of Superintending Engineer, RWD at Pasighat and the respondent No. 3 has been appointed as Executive Engineer on promotion at Changlang. Heard Mr. K. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Sr. Govt Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. J. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are the Hon'ble MLA and Minister respectively at whose instance the transfer order has been issued. However, these respondents preferred to remain silent and did not file any affidavit to deny the allegation of malafide transfer of the petitioner. I have also perused the relevant file, produced by the learned Sr. Govt. counsel.

(2.) The writ petitioner's case is that he was posted at Changlang as Executive Engineer in the month of July, 2012 on transfer from Khonsa. Since it was a pre-mature transfer (within 32 days) the transfer order was challenged in the High Court. However, after an amicable settlement and with an assurance by the concerned authorities that the writ petitioner will be allowed to complete his tenure at Changlang he withdrew the writ petition. Finally, the writ petitioner joined the post of Executive Engineer at Changlang on 31.8.2012. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner the impugned transfer order has been passed within a period of less than 8(eight) months and that too at the behest of an MLA and a Minister to facilitate posting of respondent No. 3 at Changlang. Mr. Jini, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out certain recommendations of the MLA (R-4) to award contract work to various persons and contended that since the writ petitioner did not oblige to the recommendations of the MLA he has been transferred pre-maturely on political pressure of the MLA. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied. upon various authorities, viz judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, rendered in the in the case of Tarlochand Dev Sharma Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2001 6 SCC 260, Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi Vs. U.P Jal Nigam & Ors., 2003 11 SCC 740and the judgment of Gauhati High Court rendered in the case of Roukuolhoulie Angami Vs. State of Nagaland & Ors., 1997 1 GauLT 140.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Sr. Govt. Advocate submitted that there was no malafide on the part of the State respondents in effecting the inter-se transfer. According to the learned counsel the transfer was effected on the basis of the recommendation made by the local MLA and a Minister since the services of R-3 were required at Changlang. Referring to the judgment of this Court, rendered in the case of Kalyan Kr. Sarkar Vs. Alok Kanti Paul Choudhury & Ors., 2006 3 GauLT 624, the learned Government counsel submitted that the impugned transfer order need not be interfered with since there is no violation of any statutory provision. According to the learned counsel the transfer policy has no statutory backing and arc merely instructions and cannot be enforced in the Court of law.