ABHIRAM DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dtd. 26/9/2022 whereby the Petitioner was transferred from Bijni Revenue Circle to Barama Revenue Circle and the Respondent No. 7 was transferred from Barama Revenue Circle to Bijni Revenue Circle.

(2.) The facts involved in the instant case is that the Petitioner was initially appointed as Lot Mandal in the year 2006 in the District of Tinsukia. Thereupon the Petitioner at his request was transferred to his home District i.e. Bongaigaon in the year 2007 itself. Subsequent thereto, with the formation of the BTAD, the Petitioner started functioning as a Lot Mondal in the District of Chirang and have been functioning therein for the last 16 years. Vide the order dtd. 26/9/2022 which have been impugned in the instant proceedings, the Petitioner have been transferred from the Chirang District to the Baksa District i.e. from Bijni Revenue Circle to Barama Revenue Circle. The grounds on which the Petitioner have challenged the order of transfer are two folds. The first ground on which the Petitioner have challenged the transfer order is that the transfer of the Petitioner was contrary to the settled principles of law as laid down in the case of Kamini Kr. Brahma and Ors. Vs. State of Assam and Ors. reported in 2013 (5) GLT 668 inasmuch as in the said judgment, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had categorically held that unless exceptional circumstances exists, the Lot Mandals should not be transferred to another district in a routine manner. The second ground on which the Petitioner have challenged the transfer order is that the Petitioner's parents are 90 years old and it would be difficult on the part of the Petitioner to look after his parents if he is transferred to Baksa District.

(3.) Mrs. R.B.Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf the BTC submits that the said judgment in the case of Kamini Kr. Brahma(supra) is not applicable to the instant case for two reasons. The first reason is that the judgment in the case of Kamini Kumar Brahma(supra) was rendered when candidates from other districts could not participate in the selection process of Lot Mandals in respect to a particular district which however is not applicable. Secondly, the said judgment is not applicable to the instant case in view of the fact that the Petitioner was appointed at Tinsukia and at his own request he was transferred to Bongaigaon and as such the Petitioner cannot claim the benefits on the basis of the said judgment. As regards the ground taken that the Petitioner' parents are aged, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the BTC that the distance between the Petitioner's present place of posting to the transferred location would require travelling of around 1 1/2 hours to 2 hours and as such the ground on which the Petitioner is seeking that he should not be transferred is totally misconceived. She further submits that the Petitioner have been in the same Revenue Circle for the last 16 years and as such on account of administrative exigency, the Petitioner had been transferred.