WP(C) 848/2009 8486BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. P. KATAKEY The petitioner, presently working as Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) at the Dotma ICDS project under the Bodoland Territorial Council (in short, the BT C) by the present petition has challenged the order dated 6 February 2009 passed by the Joint Secretary, BTC, Kokrajhar, transferring her from Dotma ICDS projec t to the Nagrijuli ICDS project in BTC area and also the order dated 25 February 2009 passed by the Principal Secretary to Government of Assam in Social Welfare Department, whereby and where-under she has been transferred out of the BTC are a, that is, from Kachugaon ICDS project to the Bajali ICDS project under the Bar peta district. I have heard Mr P Sarma, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms P Chakrab orty, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Also heard Mr D Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. None appears f or the respondent Nos.4 & 5, despite service of notice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the BTC auth ority had no objection in transferring the petitioner to a place within the BTC area and no-objection had also been communicated by the order dated 28 July 2006 , the petitioner was transferred from the Bilasipara ICDS project to Kachugaon I CDS project within the BTC area vide order dated 5 July 2007 passed by the Gover nment of Assam in the Social Welfare Department and thereafter from the Kachugao n ICDS project to the Dotma ICDS project vide order dated 30 August 2008 passed by the Joint Secretary, BTC. It has also been submitted that since the power is vested on the BTC authority to transfer its officers/employees posted within its jurisdiction, the transfer order dated 6 February 20009 was passed by the Joint Secretary transferring the petitioner from Dotma ICDS project to the Nagrijuli ICDS project and simultaneously vide order dated 25 February 2009 passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Social Welfare Department she has been transferred from the Kachugaon ICDS project, which is within the B TC area, to the Bajali ICDS project, which falls outside the BTC area. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, in one month, that is, in the month of February 2009, two orders regarding the place of posting of the petitioner were passed by two different authorities simulatneously, thereby putt ing her in the lurch. According to learned counsel, the Government of Assam in S ocial Welfare Department even did not know, as it appears from impugned order da ted 25 February 2009, that petitioner had subsequently been transferred from Kac hugaon to Bajali. Learned counsel further submits that by virtue of the interim order dated 2 March 2009 the petitioner is still discharging her duties as CDPO at Dotma ICDS project. It is submitted that till a fresh order is passed, the pe titioner may be allowed to discharge her duties at Dotma ICDS project. Learned Standing Counsel for Social Welfare Department submits that if a n officer/employee is sought to be transferred out of the BTC area, in normal co urse, the BTC authority has to be consulted. It has also been submitted that wit hin the BTC area the BTC authority has the exclusive power to transfer its emplo yees within its jurisdiction. Learned counsel further submits that impugned orde r dated 25 February 2009 was passed in view of directions of the Election Commis sion of India issued prior to the 2009 Lok Sabha Election. Learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has submitted that if the Government wants to transfer the petitioner out of the BTC area, it may d o so after due consultation with BTC authority, but in the instant case, the tra nsfer order was passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam in Social Welfare Department without any consultation with BTC authority. Learned s enior counsel further submits that the order dated 6 February 2009 was passed in public interest and as well as in administrative exigencies. It appears that two orders have been passed by the two different authori ties in the month of February 2009. The order dated 6 February 2009 was passed b y the Joint Secretary, BTC transferring the petitioner from Dotma to Nagrijuli, and order dated 25 February 2009 was passed by the Principal Secretary to the Go vernment of Assam in the Social Welfare Department transferring the petitioner f rom Kachugaon to Bajali, which falls outside the BTC area. It further appears th at vide order dated 30 August 2008 petitioner was transferred from Kachugaon to Dotma by the Joint Secretary, BTC, which fact was not within the knowledge of th e Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Social Welfare Departmen t, as is evident from the order dated 25 February 2009.. It is not in dispute that the BTC authority can transfer its officers/em ployees within its territory. By the order dated 6 February 2009, the Joint Secr etary, BTC, transferred the petitioner from Dotma to Nagrijuli. It is also not i n dispute that for transferring out an officer from the BTC area, normally BTC a uthority is to be consulted, and on due consultation, the Government of Assam ca n transfer the officer out of the BTC area. By order dated 25 February 2009, the petitioner was transferred out of the BTC area even without consulting the Coun cil which order, according to learned Standing Counsel for the Social Welfare De partment, had to be passed because of the directions issued by the Election Comm ission prior to 2009 Lok Sabha Election. Be that as it may, since the petitioner is, by virtue of the interim ord er dated 2 March 2009, still working at Dotma since the date when she joined th ere by virtue of transfer order dated 30 August 2008, the present petition is di sposed of with the observation that the BTC authority may pass fresh order of tr ansfer, if it is expedient to do so. It is also open to the Government of Assam to pass necessary order transferring the petitioner out of the BTC area if such order is required to be passed, but only after due consultation with the BTC aut hority. Needless to say, the petitioner shall be allowed to discharge her duties at the Dotma ICDS project till fresh order is passed by the appropriate authori ty. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.