WP(C) 5926/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. D. Saikia, learn ed standing counsel for the Health Department appears for respondents 1 to 5. T he respondent No.7 is represented by Mr. I. Choudhury and Mr. S. Shyam, learned counsel appears for respondent No. 8. The Assam Public Service Commission (Respo ndent No. 6) is represented by Mr. C. Barua. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 26.10.2010 (Annexure-5), where by Smti. Kakoli Mahanta, Secretary, Jorhat Medical College & Hospital is posted in the same capacity at Regional Dental College, Guwahati and the petitioner hol ding the post of Secretary at the Regional Dental College, Guwahati is transferr ed and posted at Jorhat. 3.1 The petitioner contends that the impugned transfer order has been issued to suit the personal convenience of the respondent No. 7 and public exigencies have not prompted the said transfer. 3.2 In order to demonstrate that the transfer order has been issued only in furtherance of the family interest of the private respondents, the learned couns el Mr. T. Chutia refers to the fact that the respondent No. 7 applied specifical lyfor the post at the Jorhat Medical College & Hospital in April, 2010 by addres sing an application to the Chief Minister of the State and having been appointed thereafter at Jorhat in the applied post on 29th May, 2010 under the provisions of Regulation 3(f) of the APSC (Limitation & Functions) Regulation, 1951 (for s hort the APSC Regulation ), never joined in her appointed post at Jorhat. Inst ead through representation addressed again to the Chief Minister, which was acte d upon, the petitioner was transferred out of Guwahati, to enable the new appoin tee (respondent No.7) to be accommodated at Guwahati. 3.3. It is also contended by the learned counsel that unlike the respondent N o.7, who was a temporary appointee, the petitioner was regularly appointed to th e post of Secretary, Regional Dental College, Guwahati on the recommendation of the APSC only on 25.8.09 and even before expiry of the normal tenure of 3 years, the petitioner was transferred out of Guwahati to accommodate a new appointee a t Jorhat (respondent No. 7) with a post at Guwahati. 3.4 Mr. Chutia further submits that as the Chief Minister acted so promptly to appoint the respondent No. 7 at Jorhat and then to transfer her to Guwahati, without even requiring the appointee to join at her appointed post shows the und ue influence exerted by the husband (respondent No.8), who is posted in the key post of O.S.D. to the Chief Minister. Accordingly he submits that the respondent No. 7 was favoured only because of her proximity (through husband) with the Chi ef Minister and the transfer has nothing to do with administrative exigency. 4.1 Defending the transfer order, Mr. D. Saikia, learned standing counsel su bmits that making a representation to the Chief Minister for appointment or post ing is not an illegal act and it is for the Chief Minister to act on such repres entation(s) and the departmental Minister committed no wrong by acting on the ba sis of endorsement made by the Chief Minister. He submits that these are routin e administrative functions and merely because the transfer order was preceded by an endorsement of the Chief Minister and the Health Minister on the representat ion, that by itself, cannot make the order an illegal one. 4.2 The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner having been appo inted in August, 2009 was considered to be a more suitable person to be posted a t the newly started Jorhat Medical College and this being an additional ground f or issuing the transfer order, the administrative exigency is clearly discernabl e in the transfer decision taken by the Govt. 4.3 The learned departmental counsel has produced the Govt. records to show how the matter was processed departmentally, before the impugned transfer order was issued on 26.10.2010. 5.1 Appearing for the respondent No.7, Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel con tends that the petitioner cannot question the decision taken by the Government i n administrative exigencies to post the petitioner at Jorhat Medical College and merely because it also suited the interest of the respondent No.7, who wanted t o serve at Guwahati, interference of the writ court may not be justified in the matter. 5.2 The learned counsel further submits that the difficulties expressed in t he representation filed on behalf of the respondent No.7 on 8.6.2010 were genuin e difficulties and the authorities have done no wrong by acting on the represent ation for posting of the respondent No.7 at Guwahati. 6.1. Representing the respondent No.8 (the husband of respondent No.7), who i s a Civil Service Officer posted at the Chief Minister’s Secretariat, Mr. S. Shy am, learned counsel submits that his client is a junior level officer and could not have influenced the decision of either the Chief Minister or the departmenta l Minister and there is no basis for the allegation made by the petitioner that the petitioner was transferred to Jorhat, only to accommodate the wife of respon dent No.8 at Guwahati. 6.2 The learned counsel also questioned as to whether a writ Court would int erfere with a transfer order when there is an element of administrative exigency in posting the petitioner to the newly established Jorhat Medical College. 7. Before proceeding to consider the rival submissions, this court examined the records produced by Mr. Saikia, which reveals that the file movement culmin ating in the impugned transfer order started with the application made by the mo ther-in-law of respondent No.7, for posting her at Guwahati to take care of the family needs. Till that application, there was no endorsement in the file to sho w that the Government felt any need to post an experienced person as Secretary i n the newly established Jorhat Medical College & Hospital. Considering this aspe ct in the records, this court is therefore inclined to believe that the addition al ground cited by the State to move the petitioner to Jorhat is a camouflage to achieve the main objectives of posting the respondent No.7 at Guwahati. 8. What is also of considerable significance is that respondent No.7 prompt ly secured her appointment in May, 2010 on the basis of an application addressed to the Chief Minister in April, 2010 requesting for her appointment to a vacant post of Secretary in the Jorhat Medical College. Her job application was proces sed and considered immediately and on 29.5.2010 she was appointed under Regulati on 3(f) of the APSC Regulation and posted at Jorhat Medical College & Hospital. However, the appointee (respondent No.7) never joined in her appointed post at J orhat and in the mean time a representation was filed on her behalf citing famil y reasons, to accommodate her at Guwahati. Acting on the representation (once ag ain addressed to the Chief Minister), the posting of the petitioner was changed by the impugned order to the Regional Dental College at Guwahati and to make way for her, the petitioner was transferred from Guwahati to Jorhat. It must also b e noted that the family difficulties i.e. young childrens and ailing parents-in- laws, cited were pre-existing difficulties when the respondent No.7 applied for a job at Jorhat and these foreseeable difficulties were not considered when appl ication for the job was made in April, 2010. But when the appointment letter was issued, the same family difficulties were reflected for enabling the appointee to serve at Guwahati instead of Jorhat. 9. In such circumstances, it is apparent that the Chief Minister played a r ole, firstly in appointment of the respondent No.7 at Jorhat Medical College and secondly in enabling the new appointee to be posted at Guwahati, without even j oining at her appointed post at Jorhat. Such intervention in quick succession by the highest authority of the State to say the least, is unusual and lends weigh t to the contention made by the petitioner that the impugned transfer order was issued not in administrative exigencies, but to accommodate the family difficult ies of the respondent No.7. Whether the husband of the respondent No.7 being pos ted as the O.S.D. of the Chief Minister was a factor in the decision of the Chie f Minister, cannot certainly be gathered from the official records but the disti nct possibility of intervention made for appointment and also subsequent posting of respondent No.7, at the instance of respondent No.8, who would naturally wan t his wife to serve at the same station at Guwahati, cannot be ruled out altoget her. 10. While in administrative exigencies a person can be transferred even befo re completion of normal tenure of three years in one station, in the present cas e, it appears that the transfer order was issued to serve the personal interest of the respondent No.7 and it appears to be a case of misuse of powers by the au thorities. 11.1 An argument is advanced to dismiss the writ petition by pointing out the conduct of the petitioner who has brought on record confidential document such as the application of the respondent No.7 addressed to the Chief Minister for he r appointment. It is contended that the petitioner ought to have disclosed the s ource of the document produced by him. The representation filed by the mother-in -law of the respondent No.7 before the Chief Minister on 8.6.2010 for posting of respondent No.7 at Guwahati with the endorsement of the Chief Minister and the Health Minister is, however, brought on record through the affidavit of responde nt No.7. Therefore, it is apparent that the petitioner as well as the respondent No.7 have brought on record confidential documents to suit their respective con venience. 11.2 However, interestingly nobody is questioning the authenticity of the doc uments brought on record by the petitioner and the respondent No.7. In these cir cumstances, merely because a question is raised as to the source of the document s, I am not inclined to reject the writ petition only on that ground. 12.1 The respondents also have argued that the petitioner had also approached the Minister in the Department of Social Welfare to intercede on behalf of the petitioner against his transfer to Jorhat. Accordingly a submission is made that the petitioner having approached a Minister in the Government, could not have c hallenged a transfer order issued at the instance of the Chief Minister. 12.2 Intervention of political persons in matters of transfer and posting is not a strange phenomenon in our country and affected citizens are well aware as to who could help them in matters of transfers and posting. In this case the res pondent No.7 had access to the office of the Chief Minister whereas the petition er had access to the office of another Minister. Both tried to play their strong est hand but eventually the intervention of the Chief Minister must have titled the balance in favour of the respondent No.7, as was expected. 13. In this case after considering the materials on record and the submissio ns of the learned counsels, I am of the view that foundational facts are availab le in this case to indicate that the Govt. acted to achieve the personal interes t of the respondent No.7 and public interest was not the predominant factor for issuing the transfer order. 14. Furthermore, the post of Secretary is not a key position requiring any s pecial skill and there is nothing to show that respondent No. 7 could not have h andled the work at Jorhat for which she was appointed, due to lack of experience . From the manner in which unilateral charge was permitted to be taken over at G uwahati by respondent No.7, in violation of Rule 145 of the Assam Financial Rule s, without even requiring her to join in her newly appointed post at Jorhat appe ars to be an arbitrary exercise of power and accordingly this court is of the vi ew that intervention is warranted with the impugned transfer order. 15. Having concluded thus, the transfer order dated 26.10.2010 (Annexure-5) is set aside and quashed. The petitioner be permitted to continue as Secretary i n the Regional Dental College, Guwahati, even though unilateral charge was claim ed to be taken over from him on 2.11.2010. It is ordered accordingly. 16. The writ petition is allowed awarding cost of Rs.2000/- against the Stat e respondents.