WP(C) 6385/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA Heard Mr. S.K. Singha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam. The grievance of the petitioner as has been enunciated in the writ petition is t hat the petitioner was substantially appointed as Tax Collector in Boginadi Gao n Pnchayat, under Lakhimpur Mahkuma Parisad in Lakhimpur District and later on the service of the petitioner was provincialised in the post of Tax Collector in the year 1991. The petitioner was allowed to hold the charge of the Panchayat S ecretary of the Bordoloni Gaon Panchayat by order under No.ZPL-4/2003-04/67, dat ed 22.03.2004. Thereafter, he was allowed to hold the assignment of In-charge Se cretary of Johing Gaon Panchayat by order under No.ZPL-100/2004-05/381, dated 18 .11.2006 and since then he was holding such post as Panchayat Secretary of those Gaon Panchayats. Learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing attention to the Circular No.ZPL-100 /2003-04/324, dated 04.11.2003, would contend that the Tax Collector shall be al lowed to function as Gaon Panchayat Secretary against the vacant sanctioned post s by the Extension Officer and other officers. He has also drawn attention to th e another circular No.PDDE(II)18/2006/37 dated 03.07.2009, whereunder the Commis sioner has communicated the Chief Executive Officer, Lakhimpur Zila Parishad tha t the employees of other establishment, such as block staff etc. other than the provincialised Panchayat employees are beyond his jurisdiction and should not be engaged as In-charge Secretary in the Gaon Panchayat offices because those empl oyees belong to the Block Establishment. The Chief Executive of the Zilla Parish ad having no control and jurisdiction over the Block Staff as In-charge Secretar y in the Gaon Panchayat offices should strictly avoid their assignments to the s aid post so that no legal complication arises in future. Referring to another ci rcular No.PDDE(II)51/2011/2 dated 28.07.2011, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that it is the decision of the Government that the Gaon Panchayat Secretary who has completed six years of service in the same place is to be tra nsferred out immediately. Relying on those circulars, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously submi ts that some of the Block employees have been given assignment as the Panchayat Secretaries while the petitioner, who is working under the Zila Parishad in the substantive post of Tax Collector, has been divested of such charge. Such action of the respondents in view of their own administrative policy is unsustainable. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has not completed six years of service in the same place and as such he cannot b e withdrawn from the assignment of In-charge Panchayat Secretary. Learned counse l has also taken this court to the judgment and order dated 02.09.2011, as passe d in W.P.(C) No.4287/2011, whereby this court held : Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the parties, I dispose of this writ petition with direction to the respondent Director to provi de suitable placement in the Gaon Panchayat. This direction shall not preclude t he respondents authorities to utilize the services of the petitioners in the pos t of In-charge secretary, if such posting is legally tenable and if exigency of service so demands. On the basis as aforesaid, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.11.2 011 at Annexure-H to the writ petition, whereunder he has been directed to repor t to his new posting at T.C. of Chouldhua Gaon Panchayat. By that order, his ass ignment as In-charge Panchayat Secretary of Johing Gaon Panchayat has been impli edly divested of. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 09.08.2011 (Annexure-E to the writ petition), whereby in public interest the petitioner has been divested of the additional charge of Johing Gaon Panchayat. I have also heard Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam, who submits tha t there is no illegality in the impugned orders nor the petitioner has alleged a gainst the respondent of extraneous consideration or of passing the order in vio lation of any statutory provision. Therefore, the petitioner has got no locus to challenge these orders. I have given anxious consideration of submissions as made by the learned counsel for the parties and also the circulars as placed before this court and I find t hat the petitioner was appointed and posted as the Tax Collector in the substant ive capacity and he was for some time posted as the In-charge Secretary, lastly in Johing Gaon Panchayat as additional charge. The petitioner could not establish that he has accrued any right over the post o f Panchayat Secretary in Johing Gaon Panchayat or over the post of Panchayat Sec retary in general. Merely of his being divested of that assignment, he cannot sa y that he has been illegally hit by the impugned orders. Law in this respect is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that the court should be loathe in exercising jurisdiction in the administrative affairs of the executiv e inasmuch as the Executive has to be allowed with a level-playing ground for ma naging the administrative assignments for best discharging of public duties. I do not find any illegality or even irregularity in the impugned orders. In view of the above observations, the writ petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. No order as to costs.