PRAMATH CH SARMA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 09. 08. 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the present respondent No. 4, who is the writ petitioner in the said writ petition, setting aside the order of transfer dated 27. 01. 2006 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the government of Assam, Industries and Commerce Department transferring the present appellant from Silchar to Guwahati as Functional Manager, DICC, in place of the present respondent No. 4, on the ground of the violation of the transfer guideline issued vide office memorandum dated 04. 02. 2002 by the Government, in so far as it relates to not spelling out the grounds and reasons of such transfer as well as for not taking the approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister.

(2.) THE facts in brief relevant for the purpose of the present appeal is that the appellant who was working as Functional Manager, DICC, Cachar at Silchar was transferred in the interest of public service vide notification dated 27. 01. 2006 transferring him from Silchar to Guwahati in the same capacity vice the present respondent No. 4 (writ petitioner in the writ petition) who has been transferred from Guwahati to Silchar. The said order of transfer was challenged by the present respondent No. 4 in the aforesaid writ petition basically on the ground of violation of the transfer guideline issued vide office memorandum dated 04. 02. 2002, as the same has been issued without taking approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister, as is required under the said office memorandum, in view of the fact that the writ petitioner who has been posted as Functional Manager, DICC, Kamrup at Guwahati on 30. 01. 2004 has been transferred by the said order of transfer dated 27. 01. 2006, before completion of the tenure of three years. The other ground of challenge to the said transfer notification was that though the said office memorandum requires recording of reason for transferring an officer before completion of three years tenure, no reason or ground has been recorded for such transfer.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as Mr. A. K. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Ms. B. Goyal, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.