WP(C) 2476/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI JUDGMENT & ORDER Heard Sri AS Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri B J Ghosh, learned Government Advocate, Assam and Sri BD Goswami, learned counsel for the Respondent No.7. 2. The challenge in the writ petition is against an order dated 09.06.2008b y which the inter se transfers of the petitioner and the Respondent No.7, made b y order dated 27.05.2008, has been kept in abeyance until further orders. 3. The brief facts may now be noticed: At the relevant point of time the writ petitioner, Abul Hussain, was working as the B.D.O. of the Bihali Development Block. By the order dated 27.05.2008, the p etitioner was transferred and posted in the same capacity at Pub Mangaldoi Devel opment Block in place of the Respondent No.7, who was transferred and posted as the B.D.O. of the Bihali Development Block. According to the petitioner, he was released from the Bihali Development Block on 04.06.2008 and he had submitted hi s joining report at Pub Mangaldoi Development Block on the next date, i.e., 05.0 6.2008. However, according to the petitioner, he could not take over charge of t he Pub Mangaldoi Development Block as the Respondent No.7 was not available. Fin ally, on 09.06.2008 the impugned order has been passed by which the earlier tra nsfer order dated 27.05.2008 had been kept in abeyance. As the order dated 09.06 .2008 had the potential of causing harm and prejudice to the writ petitioner, wh o had already been released from his earlier post, this writ petition has been f iled calling into question the aforesaid order dated 09.06.2008. 4. In support of the challenge made, the writ petitioner contends that thou gh the initial transfer order dated 27.05.2008 was with the prior approval of th e Chief Minister, the subsequent order dated 09.06.2008 keeping the earlier orde r dated 27.05.2008 in abeyance did not have the approval of the Chief Minister. Such approval, according to the petitioner, is mandatory in terms of the Govern ment Notification laying down the policy of transfer. Additionally, the petition er has contended that the order dated 09.06.2008 has been passed on extraneous c onsiderations and only to accommodate the Respondent No.7 in the Pub Mangaldoi D evelopment Block. Consequently, interference of the Court has been prayed for. 5. Sri BJ Ghosh, learned Government Advocate, Assam, has placed before the Court the records in original disclosing the relevant facts and circumstances in which the impugned order dated 09.06.2008 came to be passed by the Departmental Authority. A perusal of the records in original would go to show that on 02.06. 2008, a note was addressed to the Departmental Minister, i.e., Department of Pan chayat and Rural Development by the Minister, PHE to the effect that the petitio ner Abul Hussain was earlier posted as the B.D.O. of the Pub Mangaldoi Developm ent Block and he had served a tenure of almost five years in the said Block. Th e Minister, PHE, in the note to the Departmental Minister had further stated th at during the earlier tenure of the petitioner in the Pub Mangaldoi Development Block, there were several complaints against him. It was also stated in the said note that in connection with the transfer of the petitioner to the Pub Mangaldo i Development Block made by order dated 27.05.2008, there were large scale resen tments amongst the members of the public who desired that the Respondent No.7 be retained in the Pub Mangaldoi Development Block on account of his good record o f performance in the said post. Accordingly, the Minister, PHE requested the De partmental Minister to cancel the transfer order dated 27.05.2008 and allow the Respondent No.7 to continue as the B.D.O. of the Pub Mangaldoi Development Block . 6. On the body of the said note of the Minister, PHED, the Departmental Min ister passed an order dated 03.06.2008 requiring the Commissioner of the Departm ent to stay the transfer order dated 27.05.2008. The file was thereafter process ed for issuance of the formal order in the course of which opinions were express ed that as the initial transfer order dated 27.05.2008 was with the approval of the Chief Minister, any modification of the said order would also require the pr ior approval of the Chief Minister. The Departmental Minister did not agree with the said view and directed that the transfer of the two incumbents made by orde r dated 27.5.2008 may be kept in abeyance. Furthermore, in the order of the Depa rtmental Minister, it was mentioned that a large number of Presidents/Members of the concerned Anchalik Panchayats and Gaon Panchayats had also made a request f or retention of the Respondent No.7 in the Pub Mangaldoi Development Block as ha d been made by the Minister, PHE. Thereafter, it was recorded in the file that t he formal order keeping the transfer order dated 27.5.2008 in abeyance may be i ssued and such an order need not have the prior approval of the Chief Minister . Pursuant to the said orders/notings recorded in the file, the order dated 09.06 .2008 was issued keeping the transfer order dated 27.05.2008 in abeyance. 7. Time and again, the judicial verdict has emphasized a very limited role for the Courts while entertaining complaints with regard to transfers and postin gs of members of Civil Servants. Ordinarily, in the normal course, it is the emp loyer State who must be acknowledged to be the best judge in such matters. The r ole of the Court would come into play only when transfers and postings are made arbitrarily or on extraneous considerations or in a situation where laid down no rms have been openly flouted. In the present case, the Minister, PHE, who, it i s agreed at the Bar, represents the constituency in which the Pub Mangaldoi Deve lopment Block is included had put up a note to the Departmental Minister, the co ntents of which have already been noted. If, on the basis of such a note, the D epartmental Minister had thought it proper to pass orders keeping the transfer o f the two incumbents in abeyance, the course of action adopted cannot be said t o be either arbitrary or based on extraneous reasons. 8. The Courts must acknowledge that the views of the elected representativ es of the people can legitimately be taken into account while transferring and p osting Civil Servants so long the views expressed are consistent with the needs of a good administration. After all, the elected representatives are expected to know what would be good and conducive to the needs of the administration. In th e present case, based on the requests made by such elected representatives, the Departmental Minister had thought it appropriate to keep the transfer of the t wo incumbents in abeyance. 9. Viewed from the aforesaid perspective, it cannot be said that the impugn ed order dated 09.06.2008 would fall within any prohibited parameter so as to j ustify interference of the Court. A point has been raised that though the initia l transfer order dated 27.05.2008 had the prior approval of the Chief Minister the order dated 09.06.2008 did not have any such approval. If the Court is to ho ld (hypothetically)that the terms of the Government Memorandum requiring prior approval of the Chief Minister is mandatory requirement, naturally, any variati on of the initial transfer order should also require the prior approval of the C hief Minister. Any other view would have the effect of rendering the terms of th e relevant Government Memorandum to a nullity and, therefore, must be avoided. 10. In the present case, the Court has noticed that by the order dated 09.06 .2008, the initial transfer order dated 27.05.2008 has only been kept in abeyanc e until further orders. The expression used in the order dated 09.08.2008 would be suggestive of the fact that the said order was intended to be, purely, a s top-gap arrangement pending finalization of the matter. As final orders with reg ard to the transfer of the two incumbents are required to be passed which order is still awaited, the Court is of the view that, in any event, absence of the prior approval of the Chief Minister to such a wholly temporary arrangement shou ld not be allowed to work as a vitiating factor. 11. In the above circumstances, while declining to interfere with the order dated 09.06.2008, the Court is of the view that the Departmental Minister shoul d now pass final orders with regard to the postings of the two officers, i.e., t he petitioner and the Respondent No.7 in terms of the order dated 09.06.2008. Th is will be done by the Departmental Minister as expeditiously as possible. Beyon d the above, no other direction from the Court will be justified. 12. Writ Petition, consequently, is ordered as closed in terms of the above directions.