Santanu Kumar Kar v. Director, Secondary Education, Odisha). The operative portion of the order passe
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No. 1401 of 2022 Santanu Kumar Kar …. Appellant Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- Sanjay Kumar Deo Respondent Mr. P.M.Patjoshi, SC, S&ME Department for respondent nos.2, 3 & 4 …. CORAM : JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO
Decision
ORDER 11.01.2023 Hybrid Mode Order No. 05. 1. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 10.10.2022 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby W.P.(C) No. 26117 of 2022, filed by respondent no.1 has been allowed and the order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Odisha retaining appellant at Suliapada & transferring respondent no.1 to Kuliana has been set aside. 2. The said order dated 27.09.2022 was passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in compliance of the order dated 20.07.2022 passed by the leaned Single Judge disposing of W.P.(C) No.16379 of 2022 (Santanu Kumar Kar v. Director, Secondary Education, Odisha). The operative portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge is quoted herein : “5.Considering the limited grievance of the petitioner, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the writ petition directing the opposite party No.1 to dispose of the representation vide Annexure-5 by passing a reasoned order, especially, in the light of Annexure-4 within a period of one month from the date of production of authenticated/certified copy of this order by the petitioner.” 3. By the order dated 27.09.2022 (Annexure-4), which has been set aside by the learned Single Judge the Director, Secondary Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar had directed as follows : // 2 // “…...In view of the above facts, Sri Santanu Kumar Kar, the petitioner is allowed to work in Office of the BEO, Suliapada and Sri Sanjaya Kumar Deo, Jr. Asst., Office of the BEO, Suliapada is transferred to Office of the BEO, Kuliana. The representation of the petitioner under Annexure-5 is disposed of accordingly. Inform all concerned accordingly.” 4. The earlier writ petition W.P.(C) No. 16379 of 2022, disposed of by order dated 20.07.2022 was filed by the present appellant challenging order of his transfer dated 10.06.2022 passed by the District Education Officer (DEO) Mayurbhanj, when the appellant was working as Junior Assistant in the office of the Block Education Officer, Suliapada, stating that though he has completed only one year and three months at Suliapada, contrary to the principles followed by the Government, to accommodate respondent No.1 in a nearby place, respondent No.1 was transferred from Sanamundhabani High School at Sanamundhabani to the appellant’s place of posting, i.e. the office of the Block Education Officer, Suliapada. After the Respondent No.3-Director, Higher Secondary Education passed order (dated 27.09.2022) restoring the appellant to continue as Junior Assistant in the office of the Block Education Officer, Suliapada, the appellant was allowed by the DEO to join in Suliapada reverting the Respondent No.1 working as Junior Assistant, Office of the Block Education Officer, Suliapada to join as Junior Assistant in the office of Block Education Officer, Kuliana. The appellant submitted his joining report on 1.10.2022 (Annexure-5) which was accepted and communicated to Block Education Officer, Mayurbhanj. 5. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 filed W.P.(C) No. 26117 of 2022 challenging the above order of the Director, Secondary Education dated 27.09.2022 (Annexure-4) which was disposed of at the stage of admission vide order dated 10.10.2022 that is challenged in the present writ appeal. Page 2 of 5 // 3 // 6. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition by order dated 20.07.2022 has observed as follows : “4.Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Opposite Party No.6 was transferred to the office of the Block Education Officer, Baripada from the office of the Block Education Officer, Suliapada where the Petitioner has been transferred. The Opposite Party No.6 being aggrieved by his transfer to the office of the Block Education Officer Baripada had approached this Court vide W.P.(C) No.16379 of 2022. This Court vide order dated 20.07.2022 disposed of the said Writ Petition with a direction to the Opposite Party No.2/ Director, Secondary Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar to consider the representation of the Opposite Party No.6. However, while considering the representation of the Opposite Party No.6, again the Opposite Party No.2/ Director, Secondary Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar has passed the order of transfer of the Petitioner to the office of the Opposite Party No.5/ Block Education Officer, Kuliana. He further submits that just after three months of his transfer, again the Petitioner has been transferred to Kuliana Block only to accommodate the Opposite Party No.6 vide order dated 27.09.2022. the 5.The order dated 27.09.2022 passed by Secondary Opposite Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar has unnecessarily been created fiasco. The Petitioner has unnecessarily been disturbed as he was recently transferred to the office of 6.In such view of the matter, this Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the Opposite Party No.2/ Director, Secondary Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar is set aside. It is made clear that the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5 should not transfer any employee and create chaotic situation by interchanging the employees unnecessarily. The transfer policy prescribed by the Government should be strictly adhered to unless there is some emergent situation.” Party No.2/ Director, the Block Education Officer, Suliapada. 7. To challenge the above order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is contended that the appellant could have been transferred only by the order issued by the Directorate of Secondary Education and reliance is placed on Annexure-8 to the additional affidavit filed by the appellant i.e. office letter No.11292 dated 13.05.2022 issued by the Directorate of Page 3 of 5 // 4 // Secondary Education enclosing list of names of non-teaching staff (ministerial) proposed to be transferred. In our considered view, contents of letter dated 13.05.2022 (Annexure-8) would go to show that contentions raised by the appellant is misconceived. Rather, the non-teaching staff being in the district cadre, their intra district transfer is to be implemented at the level of the District Education Officer i.e., D.E.O, Mayurbhanj as has been done in the present case. The relevant portion of the letter issued by the Directorate of Secondary Education is reproduced herein for convenience of reference : to transfer “In inviting a reference on the subject noted above I am directed to say that the district transfer proposal (list enclosed) received from you have been provisionally approved by the DSE(O). Since, you are the competent authority the non-teaching employees working under your administrative control up to 15th June, 2022, you may execute the proposals. So, you are requested to take appropriate steps for disposal of intra district transfer of proposed non- teaching staff of your district at your level as per prevailing norms. The list of proposal received from your office are returned herewith for implementation at your level and report compliance to this Directorate.” (emphasis supplied) 8. It is further contended that the appellant having not completed six years in his place of posting (Annexure-1), i.e. office of Block Education Officer, Baripada he could not have been transferred out, as per the transfer policy of the Govt. To buttress such submission, the learned counsel for the appellant relies on the series of letters enclosed to the additional affidavit filed by the appellant marked as Annexure-9 series. Having given our anxious consideration to such contention raised by the appellant and upon going through the office letters issued by the Directorate of Secondary Education marked as Annexure-9 series, it has to be observed that the contentions are unsustainable inasmuch as the Annexure-9 series do not lay Page 4 of 5 // 5 // down any guideline that a ministerial staff cannot be transferred before completion of six years at his place of posting. It has to be reiterated that transfer being an incidence of service, appropriate authority is well within its right to transfer an employee as per the administrative exigencies. The letters as at Annexure-9 series only go to show that the authorities are intending to identify any employee who continues at one office within the district for more than six years so that he can be transferred and posted at other place to make the office administration more transparent and not to invite criticism that a particular employee is allowed to remain at a particular place for a long period. 9. Having rejected the contentions raised by the appellant in the present appeal, we are also of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is otherwise just and proper there being no error apparent on the face of record. The writ appeal is dismissed accordingly. (Jaswant Singh) Judge (M.S.Sahoo) Judge 11th January, 2023 dutta Cuttack Page 5 of 5