B.K. Sharma, J.
1. The 'petitioner who is presently working as Treasury Officer at Abhayapuri Sub-treasury was transferred as Treasury Officer of Kamrup Treasury vice the respondent No. 4 who was transferred as Finance & Accounts Officer in the office of the Director, Pension, Assam. This was so done by a notification dated 28.1.2004. Apart from the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 and four other officers were also transferred from one place to another having chain reaction.
2. Pursuant to the said order of transfer, the petitioner was released from Abhayapuri office with effect from 30.1.2004 enabling him to join duty as Treasury Officer, Kamrup Treasury. By a notification dated 12.2.2004 stated to be in partial modification of the earlier notification dated 28.1.2004, the transfer of the respondent No. 4 was stayed upto 31.3.2004 and the petitioner was directed to continue as Treasury Officer, Abhayapuri sub-treasury till 31.3.2004. This was followed by the impugned notification dated 25.3.2004 altogether cancelling the earlier notification dated 28.1.2004. By yet another notification dated 10.3.2004, another officer was transferred and posted to the place where the respondent No. 4 was earlier transfer and posted.
3. It is in the above backdrop the present writ proceeding has been initiated challenging the legality and validity of the action on the part of the official respondents towards issuance to the impugned notification dated 25.3.2004. A further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to join in Kamrup treasury in terms of the notification dated 28.1.2004. According to the petitioner he has already rendered three years of service at Abhayapuri and thus was due for his transfer. It is his case that upon release from Abhayapuri he has shifted his family by hiring rented accommodation and has ' admitted his children in school in Guwahati. The petitioner sees mala fide and colourable exercise of power towards retaining the respondent No. 4 in Guwahati. According to the petitioner the respondent No. 4 has already completed more than five years in his present place of posting at the behest of political highhandedness. Further, case of the petitioner is that his transfer from Abhayapuri to Guwahati was in routine manner.
4. The office respondents although have not filed any affidavit, produced records in support of the impugned order. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A.J. Atia submitted that after ordering transfer of the petitioner form Abhayapuri to Guwahati in a routine manner, there could not have any occasion to
stay the transfer order and then to cancel the same. According to Mr. Choudhury, the entire action on the part of the official respondents is to show favour to the respondent No. 4. Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Government advocate, Assam on the other hand submitted that the presence of the respondent No. 4 in Guwahati is Required in view of entrusting of election duties to him and also in connection with some important works. He submitted that the petitioner cannot claim his transfer and posting to a particular place and it is within the competence and jurisdiction of the State Government to transfer its officers on evaluation of the exigencies. Mr. G.C. Phukan, while adopting the submissions made by Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Government advocate produced document to suggest that the presence of the respondent No. 4 is required in connection with investigation of a CBI case.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the materials on record including the records produced by Mr. B. Choudhury, learned Government advocate. The petitioner has made statements in the writ petition that his transfer from Abhayapuri to Guwahati was a routine affair, he having completed three years at Abhayapuri and that the respondent No. 4 has been continuing in Guwahati for more than five years at the behest of the political bosses. However, the records revealed otherwise. The case of the petitioner for transfer from Abhayapuri to Guwahati was espoused Minister, Health & Family Welfare, Assam by his note to the Commissioner & Secretary, Finance under endorsement No. MHFW.3/2003/748 dated 29.9.2003. The note reads as follows :
'Commissioner & Secretary, Finance
You are requested to take necessary action in the File No. F.E.B-64/ 2002 regarding transfer of Shri Monohar Deka, Treasury Officer from Abhayapuri Treasury to Dispur Treasury.
Minister
Health & FW, Assam'
6. The above note was preceded by another note to the Minister, State Finance under endorsement No. MHFW.3/2003/645 dated 1.8.2003 requesting immediate transfer of the petitioner from Abhayapuri Treasury to Dispur Treasury immediately. The note reads as follows
'Minister, State Finance
You are requested to transfer Shri Monohar Deka, AFS, Treasury Officer, Abhayapuri Treasury to Dispur Treasury immediately. Sri Deka is a quite senior person in the Assam Finance Service and deserves consideration due to his personal problems.
Minister, Health & Family Welfare, Assam'
7. In pursuance to the above recommendations of the Minister, Health & Family Welfare, the office file in question was moved at the level of different officers. At one stage it was noticed that the petitioner had not completed three years of service at Abhayapuri and was thus not ripe for transfer. Eventually the approval of the Chief Minister was obtained in view of the non-completion of three years of service by the petitioner at Abhayapuri as required as per the guidelines issued by the State Government. Thereafter the notification dated 28.1.2004 was issued transferring the petitioner from Abhayapuri to Guwahati. Thus it is the interest of the Minister, Health & Family Welfare which played the pivotal role towards transfer of the petitioner in the name of public interest.
8. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup under whose jurisdiction and supervision, the Kamrup and Dispur Treasury functions wrote a letter to the Chief Secretary, Government of Assam requesting for review of the transfer order and to retain the Treasury Officers of the respective treasury offices on the grounds mentioned in the letter. The contents of the letter are quoted below :
'To
The Chief Secretary,
To the Government of Assam,
Assam Sachivalaya, Dispur, Guwahati - 781006
Sub : Request to review the transfer order issued vide No. FEB/64/2002/ 45 dt 28.1.2004 and effect cancellation thereof.
Sir,
I have the honour to state that the transfer of both the treasury officers from Kamrup treasury and one Treasury officer from Dispur treasury by way of the above mentioned order will seriously affect the overall functioning of these treasuries.
(1) You are aware that the Kamrup Treasury is the biggest Treasury in Assam, and acts as a Central Treasury of Stamps for entire Assam, where Stamps of Crores of rupees are handled, it will be difficult to manage with the new and inexperienced hands if both the treasury officers are released at the same time. Moreover, investigation is under process regarding fake Stamps detection and verification.
(2) Besides the payment is going to open shortly, it will be difficult to run the office with inexperienced hands during the payment period.
(3) These officers of Assam Finance Service namely Sri J.N. Bhuyan, Sri S. Rahman, both treasury officers of Kamrup Treasury and Sri A.J. Bordoloi of Dispur Treasury are discharging the duties sincerely and efficiently Their services during the Budget year ending 2003-04 are required in these vital Treasuries of Assam with the heaviest burden of transactions.
(4) These officers are familiar with the online computerisation of Treasuries being the members of the programme implementation committee constituted by the Finance Department. In view of the ensuing online computerization of Kamrup Treasury and Dispur Treasury they should be allowed to continue till completion of programme.
I would therefore, request you to kindly review the transfer order referred above and do the needful in the interest of general public of this capital district.
Yours faithfully
Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M)
Guwahati'
9. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup also addressed another letter to the Commissioner & Secretary, Government of Assam in the Finance Department on 3.2.2004 making the same very request on the grounds specified in the letter. The contents of letter are quoted below :
'To
The Commissioner & Secretary,
to the Govt, of Assam,
Finance Department, Dispur, Guwahati-781006
Sub : Request to review the transfer order. Ref : No. FEB/64/2G02/45 dt 28.1.2004
Sir,
I have the honour to state that the transfer of both the treasury officers from Kamrup treasury and one Treasury officer from Dispur treasury have been transferred vide notification under referred to above.
This transfer will seriously affect the overall functioning of both the treasuries at the junction of year ending process of 2003-04.
The Kamrup Treasury is the biggest Treasury in Assam and acts as Central Treasury of Stamps for entire State of Assam handling with crores of rupees of stamps and confidential materials of UPSC/Staff Selection Commission examination etc., hence it will be extremely difficult to manage the works with the new and inexperienced hands if both the treasury officers are released at the same time. Moreover, investigation is under process to sort-out fake Stamps detection and verification process.
Further payment will be open shortly, it will be difficult to run the office with new and inexperienced hands during the payment period.
The officers of Assam Finance Service namely Sri J.N. Bhuyan, Sri S. Rahman, both treasury officers of Kamrup Treasury and Sri A.J. Bordoloi of Dispur Treasury are discharging the duties sincerely and efficiently. Their services during the end of financial year ending 2003-04 are required in these vital Treasuries of Assam with the heaviest burden of transactions.
Over and above, these officers are familiar with the online computerization of Treasuries being the members of the 'Programme implementation committee' constituted by the Government in Finance Department. In view of the ensuing online computerization of Kamrup Treasury and Dispur Treasury they should be allowed to continue till completion of programme.
I would therefore, request you kindly to review the transfer order referred above and do the needful in the interest of general public of this capital district.
Yours faithfully
Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M)
Guwahati'
10. Such request made by the Deputy Commissioner was followed by communications under UO NO.COM/CM/7/2Q04/25 dated 12.2.2004 addressed to the Commissioner & Secretary, Finance Department by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Chief Minister communicating the desire of the Chief Minister to cancel the transfer order in respect of respondent No. 4. A note under No CMO. 14/2004/32 dated 18/2/ 2004 from the Chief Minister himself to the Commissioner & Secretary, Finance Department ordering cancellation of the transfer order in respect of the respondent No. 4. This is how the initial order of transfer dated 28.1.2004 was cancelled by the impugned order dated 25.3.2004.
11. It is in the above backdrop the impugned order will have to be judged in considering the case of the petitioner. There was absolutely no public interest in transferring the petitioner from Abhayapuri to Guwahati. The only 'public interest' in his transfer was the recommendation made by the Minister, Health & Family Welfare who is no way connected with the Finance Department. Perhaps this is the style of functioning of the political bosses in violation of the transfer guidelines of which much emphasis is put in the matter of transfer of Government officers. Such private request made by Ministers unconnected with the concerned Department even by pointing out the place and office to which a particular officer should be transferred and posted culminates to notification indicating transfer of the incumbent on 'public interest'. The object and concept of 'public interest' has been reduced to such a farce. Unfortunately, the officers belonging to All India Services also succumb to the pressure of the Minister and readily agree to their recommendations without any application of independent mind. Unless the political bosses mend themselves, no amount of judicial interference in some stray, cases can help this sorry state of affair and the Government officers who do not have any political link will continue to suffer in the name of 'public interest'. This is a mockery to the very concept of 'rule of law'.
12. Coming to the case in hand, it is seen that after the transfer of the petitioner from Abhayapuri to Guwahati in acceptance of the recommendations of the Minister, Health & Family Welfare, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup who is the jurisdictional authority issued the above quoted letters to the concerned authorities indicating therein the grounds on which the continuation of the officers including the respondent No. 4 in their present place of posting were required, It was on that basis the impugned order was issued cancelling the earlier notification and such a course of action was adopted with the approval of the Chief Minister. It is entirely for the administrative authorities to decide as to which officer should be posted where. Although, as per the transfer guidelines, normal tenure of service in one station or post is three years, but there is no bar to continue the officers beyond the period of three years in public interest or in the exigencies of service. A Minister unconnected with the Department cannot and should not recommend a particular officer as in the instant case for transfer from one place to a particular place. Likewise, the officers at the helm of affairs, which include the All India Services Officers, should not readily agree to such request and recommendation unmindful of the attending circumstances and forgetting their own duties and responsibilities. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup highlighted the position in his above quoted two letters urging for review of the transfer order and it was on that basis the impugned order was passed. Thus it is seen that the assertion made by the petitioner that his transfer was a routine affair and that the respondent No. 4 has been continuing in Guwahati with political help is not correct. It is rather other way round as noticed above. The recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner cannot be faulted he being the jurisdictional administrative head and being in complete control of the situation. If the recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner found favour with the Chief Minister who incidentally is also holding the portfolio of Finance Minister under whose control the Treasury offices fall, no fault can be attributed towards issuance of the impugned order.
13. In the instant case the petitioner by invoking the writ jurisdiction has sought for an equitable relief under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, unmindful of the fact that to get such a relief, his claim must also be founded on equity and not be alien to that concept.
14. During the course of hearing on being confronted with the question as to how long the respondent No. 4 will continue in Guwahati and whether he will continue indefinitely on the grounds indicated in the above quoted two letters of the Deputy Commissioner, the learned State counsel Mr. Choudhury fairly submitted that the continuation of the respondent No. 4 in Guwahati is only in the exigencies of service as indicated by the Deputy Commissioner and by way of a temporary measure and the administration will decide in due course as to when and where he should be transferred in the interest of service and also as to whether the petitioner should be transferred to Guwahati or elsewhere in due course.
15. The Apex Court in the case of N.K. Singh v. Union of India as reported in (1994) 6 SCC 98 observed as follows :
'The tendency of any one to consider himself indispensable is undemocratic and unhealthy. Assessment of worth must be left to the bona fide decision of the superiors in service and their honest assessment accepted as a part of service discipline. Transfer of a Government servant in a transferable service is a necessary incident of the service career. Assessment of the quality of men is to be made by the superiors taking into account several factor including suitability of the person for a particular post and exigencies of administration. Several imponderables requiring formation of a subjective opinion in that sphere may be involved, at time. The only realistic approach is to leave it to the wisdom of that hierarchical superiors to make that decision. Unless the decision is vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer which alone can be scrutinised judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinizing all transfers and the courts lack the necessary expertise for personnel management of all government departments. Thus must be left, in public interest, to the departmental heads subject to the limited judicial scrutiny indicated.'
16. The above observations of the Apex Court duly fit in to the
submissions made by the learned State counsel. From the records I find that while the initial order of transfer in respect of the petitioner was issued at the behest of the Minister, Health & Family Welfare, the impugned order dated 25.3.2004 cancelling the same was issued applying sound discretion on cogent grounds.
17. For the foregoing reasons I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 25.3.2004. However, it is made clear that the noninterference with the same does not mean indefinite continuation of the respondent No. 4 in Guwahati and the petitioner at Abhayapuri. The official respondents will be at liberty to apply its discretion on sound principles of administrative fair play public interest and exigencies of service to transfer the officers as and when felt necessary. The 'public interest' must not be the one as was sought to be imposed and used in the case of the petitioner, but must be in its true and real sense.
18. Subject to the above observations the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.