The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.5978 of 2025 Laxman Marndi ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Biraja Prasanna Das -versus- State Of Odisha and others .....
Legal Reasoning
Opposite Parties Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 28.02.2025 Order No. 01. 1. 2. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a Rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause, on perusal of the causes shown be further pleased to: - 1) quash impugned Transfer Order No.4236 dt.14.02.2025 under Annexure-3 as the Page 1 of 5. illegal, arbitrary, contrary and in contravention of prevailing guidelines of Resolution No. 19538- 9/91 Gen. dt. 29.07.1991 and Resolution No.23536 dt.10.07.2000. ii) direct the arrayed OP. No.1, Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Odisha, Bhubaneswar to allow the petitioner to continue at his old station, Baitarani Irrigation Division, Salapada, Keonjhar as Superintendent Engineer (Civil) keeping the prevailing in view of guidelines under Annexure-4 & 5.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that by virtue of a notification dated 15.09.2023 of the Water Resources Department, Government of Odisha, the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintendent Engineer from the post of Executive Engineer, which he was holding prior to his promotion. Accordingly, the Petitioner who was posted at Jeypore was also promoted and posted as Superintendent Engineer (C), Baitarani Irrigation Division under CE & BM, Baitarani Basin, Keonjhar. While working as such, the Petitioner was again transferred vide order dated 14.02.2025. Being aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, challenging the aforesaid transfer order, at the outset contended that the said order has been passed in violation of the Government Resolution dated 29.07.1991 under Annexure-5 to the writ petition which has been issued by the G.A. Department, Govt. of Odisha to regulate the transfer and posting of officers. He further contended that although Clause-2 of the aforesaid Resolution provides that no officer above the rank of Page 2 of 5. Class-II shall ordinarily be disturbed before completing three years of service at a particular station. However, it has also been provided that nothing in Clause-2 shall prevent the authorities from transferring the officer earlier than three years, if it is felt necessary and the same is in public interest. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture drawing attention of this Court to the transfer order under Annexure- 3 to the writ petition, contended that the transfer or does not reflect any administrative exigency or any public interest involved in such transfer. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that it is a regular transfer, as such, the same should have been done in terms of the Resolution dated 29.07.1991. Moreover, in the absence of any administrative exigency or any public interest, the Petitioner should not have been disturbed from his present place of posting prior to completion of three years of service at the present station. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the transfer order is illegal and the same is unsustainable in law. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that transfer is an incidence of service, therefore, the officer cannot have a choice with regard to his place of posting. He further contended that in Clause-2 of Resolution dated 29.07.1991, the authorities are permitted to transfer the Petitioner keeping in view the administrative exigency as well as the public interest. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State submitted that the Opposite Parties are not committed any illegality in passing the transfer order dated 14.02.2025 under Annexure-3 to the writ petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the materials on record, this Page 3 of 5. Court is of the considered view that the order of transfer can be challenged on two grounds, i.e., when it is illegal and the order has been passed in malafide intent. So far as, the first ground is concerned, while analyzing the order of transfer under Annexure-3, it is observed that no special ground has been mentioned in the transfer order. Therefore, this Court has a reason to believe that the same has been passed in a routine manner. Further, coming back to the submission, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as taking note of the documents on record, it appears that such order has been passed before the Petitioner has completed three years’ of service. In such background, this Court is coming to a conclusion that the Petitioner has been transferred prior to the Petitioner completing three years of service at his present place of posting which is contrary to the aforesaid Resolution. Moreover, no special ground, such as administrative exigency or public interest, has been mentioned in the transfer order under Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the authorities in terms of the Resolution dated 29.07.1991. 8. Accordingly, the present writ application is being disposed of by granting liberty to the Petitioner by approached the Opposite Party No.1 by filing a detailed representation along with relevant documents within a period of one week from today. In such eventuality, Opposite Party No.1 shall consider the case of the Petitioner in terms of Resolution dated 29.07.1991 under Annexure-5 to the writ petition and disposed of the representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of Page 4 of 5. this order. It is further directed that in the event the Petitioner has not been released in the meantime, he shall not be released for a period of four weeks or till disposal of the representation. 9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. S.K. Rout ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-Feb-2025 15:41:40 Page 5 of 5.