AMAL CHOUDHURI Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Amal Choudhury. the petitioner herein, who was appointed as Draftsman Grade-III by Office Order dated 6.1 1.1987 issued by the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department. Tripura (re-designated Engineer-in-Chief, P.W.D.), the second respondent herein, was posted in the Office of the Architect, Y.W.D., Agartala against a vacancy of Draftsman. By the impugned order dated 1.6 1995, he was transferred to Kailashahar Division of the Public Works Department (for short 'P.W.D.'). By the same order five other Draftsman were also transferred. By means of this writ petition the petitioner herein has called in question the legality of the said order of his transfer on the ground that his appointment being against a vacancy of Draftsman in the Office of the Architect, P.W.D., Agartala, he was not liable to be transferred to any other place including Kailashahar where Office of the Architect did not exist.

(2.) The controversy thus raised centered round the only question whether a Draftsman appointed by the Chief Engineer and posted in the Office of the Architect, P.W.D. can be transferred to any other office under the P.W.D. within the State. The other connected questions are whether the petitioner belongs to a separate cadre of Draftsman in the architectural wing of the P.W.D.. and whether Draftsman of such cadre is liable to be transferred outside Agartala. After filing the writ petition, the petitioner has obtained an order from this Court on 2.8.1995 staying the operation of the impugned order of transfer. An attempt by the State-respondents to get the interim order vacated was rejected on 6.1 1.2000 with the observation that instead of vacating the order of stay it would be proper to dispose of the main writ petition. More than five years there- after. the main writ petition has been heard and the petitioner has en- joyed the benefit of staying at Agartala for a period of more than 18 years.

(3.) The State-respondents in their counter-affidavit contended inter alia that the transfer order was made in the public interest and that there having no allegation of mala fide behind the same the petitioner being a Draftsman under the P.W.D. is liable to serve in any part of the State which is one of the terms and conditions laid down in the offer of appointment. It has further been contended that the petitioner is not a member of the separate cadre of Draftsman of the architectural wing which was constituted on 22.6.1981. The strength of the post created for the architectural wing comprised of 6 architectural Draftsman. 3 Draftsman Grade-III and 3 Tracers. After a Period of 6 years, on 7.11.1987 the petitioner was appointed as Draftsman Grade-III of the P.W.D./I.F.C. & P.H.E./Wing of the Department of Power and posted temporarily in the Office of the Architect, P.W.D., Agartala. Such posting did not make him a member of the separate cadre of Draftsman of the architectural wing created in the year 1981. The final seniority list of Draftsman other than those belonging to the architectural wing was prepared and modified in final form including the name of the petitioner. Thus, the writ petition against the impugned order of transfer is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.