PRASANNAJIT SAIKIA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22nd June, 2004 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 4290/2004. The writ petitioner (private respondent No. 4) was working as Assistant Executive Engineer (Agriculture) at Kaliabor. By the impugned order dated 8th June 2004, she has been transferred to Gohpur vide Sri Prasannajit Saikia who, in turn, has been transferred to Koliabor. The writ petitioner challenged the aforesaid order of transfer to Gohpur in the writ petition referred to above. The learned Single Judge noticed that under the relevant Government- policy, the tenure of a Government servant is for a minimum period of 3 years and one could be moved out before three years if the exigencies of service so require. The learned Single Judge further noticed that the petitioner had served at Kaliabor for a period of 1 year only and, therefore, her order of transfer to Gohpur must be for adequate reasons, in public interest and with prior approval of the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister accorded approval on 29.5.2004 for her transfer to Guwahati and not to Gohpur. The learned Single Judge having unable to discern any accept- able reason to justify deviation from the order passed by the Chief Minister, interfered with the order of transfer and set aside the same with the direction that the petitioner should be allowed to continue at Kaliabor.

(2.) We have heard Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant: Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the private respondent No. 4 and also Mr. P.K. Musahary, learned State Counsel.

(3.) During the course of argument before this Court, the above factual background was reiterated. The relevant office file produced before this Court during the course of argument also indicate that the Chief Minister had given approval for her transfer to Guwahati and not to Gohpur. The case at hand is of premature transfer and no reason is discernible from the office file as to why she is being moved to Gohpur since the approval of the Chief Minister for her transfer was for Guwahati. The Commissioner to the Government of Assam in the Agriculture Department ought to have complied with the orders passed by the Chief Minister. Therefore, we do not find any reason for interference with the order of the learned Single Judge. We dismiss the appeal with the observation that the petitioner (private respondent No. 4) should be allowed to continue at Kaliabor. In case the respondent authority thinks that her transfer is necessary in public interest, it shall be so ordered only in compliance with the approval given by the Chief Minister. Appropriate orders shall be passed either transferring the writ petitioner to Guwahati or retaining her at Kaliabor. Appeal dismissed.