JUDGMENT 1. In this writ petition, the General Secretary of the West Bengal Civil Defence Service Officers' Guild has challenged orders of transfers and consequential release orders of the employees of the Civil Defence Establishment of the Government of West Bengal. 2. The impugned orders of transfer have been contained in Annexures 'B' and 'BI' to the writ application. The General Secretary of the said West Bengal Civil Defence Service Officers' Guild has contended that the said Officers' Guild is a recognised service association of the Officers of the Civil Defence Service of West Bengal and he has been empowered by the said Guild to appear in person for protecting the interests of its members who have become victims of illegal and mala fide orders of transfers, it has been contended in the said petition that the Civil Defence is a part of defence organization and as such is included in the Union List. The said Defence Organizations of all the States and Union Territories work under the directions of Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India under which there is a Directorate General of Civil Defence being the apex body under the Director General. It has been stated that the Civil Defence Officers of West Bengal have been working for the last 26 years and the major portions of their pay and allowances are being reimbursed by the Union of India on poolable and shareable basis. It has been contended by Mr. Subbendu Kumar Mukherjee, the General Secretary of the said Officers' Guild appearing in person in support of the writ application that it is unfortunate that the State Government has not framed any service rules for the officers of Civil Defence in the State of West Bengal and there is no definite rule which controls the conditions of services, the duties to be performed by such employees and the avenues of promotion and various other matters ancillary to such service. For the inaction of the State of West Bengal in not framing any service regulation for the Officers or the West Bengal Civil Defence Organisation the General Secretary of the said Guild on behalf of its members moved a writ application before this Court on which Matter No. 1831 of 1988 arose. For the inaction of the State of West Bengal in not framing any service regulation for the Officers or the West Bengal Civil Defence Organisation the General Secretary of the said Guild on behalf of its members moved a writ application before this Court on which Matter No. 1831 of 1988 arose. The said writ petition was disposed of on 26th February, 1988 by directing the State Government to frame the Cadre Rules for the West Bengal Civil Defence Cadre under the All India Civil Defence Act, 1968 within three months from date. It was also directed that so long as the Cadre Rules would not be framed by the Government, the Government would not allow the deputationists to be placed in the Civil Defence Department. The State Government was however given liberty to appoint on purely ad hoc basis the officers in the Civil Defence Cadre until the finalisation of the Rules. It was further directed that if the Rules were not finalised within three months, the Government would not thereafter place any officer or deputationist in the Civil Defence Organisation. 3. The State Government, however, did not frame any rule as directed and made an application for review in the said proceeding, but the said review application was dismissed. 4. The State of West Bengal thereafter preferred an appeal and such appeal is now pending final decision. It has been contended by the State of West Bengal in the appeal that the State of West Bengal has no power or authority to make any rule pertaining to the service conditions of the Civil Defence Officers. It has been contended that under the provisions of Civil Defence Act, 1968, the rules governing the conditions of service can be framed only by the Central Government and such rules are required to be placed before the Parliament. 5. Mr. Mukherjee has contended that transfer is a part of the conditions of service and the order of transfer cannot but be made for administrative exigency and not otherwise. He has contended that until the proper service conditions are framed and the duties to be performed by the Officers of Civil Defence are clearly enumerated, there will be no occasion to transfer the officers of Civil Defence on the mere caprice and whims of the superior authority without conforming to the basic and fundamental requirement of administrative exigency. Mr. He has contended that until the proper service conditions are framed and the duties to be performed by the Officers of Civil Defence are clearly enumerated, there will be no occasion to transfer the officers of Civil Defence on the mere caprice and whims of the superior authority without conforming to the basic and fundamental requirement of administrative exigency. Mr. Mukherjee has contended that under the provisions of Civil Defence Act, there is a provision for formation of Civil Defence Corps. The members of the Civil Defence Corps include the Civil Defence Staff of the rank of officers, clerical staff and Group 'D' staff. The clerical and Group 'D' staff posts are not transferable outside the area or jurisdiction of the Civil Defence Corps and as long as cadre rules are not framed, officers also cannot be transferred on mere ipse dixit of the superior authority. He has contended that there cannot be two sets of rules of different employees of the Civil Defence. It has been contended by Mr. Mukherjee that even if no rule can be framed by the State of West Bengal under the Civil Defence Act, the State of West Bengal can frame appropriate rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In any event the State of West Bengal should have issued appropriate instructions and administrative orders relating to the conditions of service of the petitioner and giving guidelines as to how and in what manner services are to be rendered by the Officers of the Civil Defence and also clearly indicating the norms relating to transfer of Officers and avenues of promotion etc. 6. Mr. Mukherjee has contended that under Section 4 of the Civil Defence Act. the State Government has been authorised to raise corps for different areas and Section 9 authorises Central Government to make regulation and under Section 20 any rule or regulation framed by the Central Government is to be placed before the Parliament. He has submitted that there are voluntary members in the Civil Derence Corps and after getting requisite training such voluntary members are enrolled as members of the Corps in various Districts and or regions in the State. A person not below the rank of District Magistrate has been made Controller of such Units in the District. But the members of the Guild being represented by Mr. A person not below the rank of District Magistrate has been made Controller of such Units in the District. But the members of the Guild being represented by Mr. Mukherjee as General Secretary are the permanent staff of the State of West Bengal and their conditions of service must be governed by proper service rules. Mr. Mukherjee has contended that the authorities under the Central Government periodically review the extent of requirement of civil defence organisation in various parts of India and according to estimated sensibility of the areas different towns and zones have been categorised. Mr. Mukherjee has contended that only in those areas which have been categorised or classified by the Central Government as Civil Defence towns or zones the members of the Guild may be transferred. It is in respect of such areas, the Central Government bear the expenditure on poolable or shareable basis. But with regard to non-scheduled areas and/or towns the Central Government does not take any financial burden. Mr. Mukherjee has submitted that the officers of the Guild having sufficient ex partes and training in the matter of civil defence. are reasonably expected to be gainfully utilised only in those areas which have been scheduled by the Central Government as civil defence zones for which the Central Government undertakes to bear expenses on poolable and shareable basis, but with regard to the other areas, there is hardly any scope for the officers of the Guild to be gainfully utilised and there cannot be any administrative exigency in transferring the officers of the Civil Defence Organisation of the State to such unscheduled areas. Mr. Mukherjee had contended that previously a general order of transfer was made, but the same was not given effect to. The officers of the Civil Defence have all along been transferred on their own seeking and/or on the basis of their representation. Mr. Mukherjee has strongly contended that the members of his Guild are willing to go on transfer in the areas specified by the Central Government as civil defence towns or zones. He has also contended that if the conditions of service are properly framed, it will be quite evident that officers cannot be transferred erratically simply on the caprice and/or whims of the superior authority. Mr. He has also contended that if the conditions of service are properly framed, it will be quite evident that officers cannot be transferred erratically simply on the caprice and/or whims of the superior authority. Mr. Mukherjee has submitted that if a proper set up of the Civil Defence Organisation is made in different-region of the State and the duties to be performed by the Officers are enumerated and Controlling Officer of the Civil Defence Organisation in such regions are also specified, there will be no difficulty in passing appropriate orders of transfer for effective utilisation of the ex partes and services of the Officers of the Guild, Mr. Mukherjee has contended that simply because the officers of the Guild are State Government employees, they cannot be sent on transfer to any place in West Bengal without conforming the basic requirement of administrative exigency. Mr. Mukherjee has contended that the orders of transfers have been made admittedly on the basis of the representation of some of the officers. Hence ex facio the orders of transfers have not been made on any consideration of administrative exigency or on account of public interest. Mr. Mukherjee has also contended that the respondents have failed to demonstrate before this Court as to how the administrative exigency will be fulfilled by passing the impugned orders of transfers involving large number of officers; more so, when many of them have been sought to be transferred in the non-specified zones where there is hardly any scope of the concerned officers being gainfully utilised on the basis of their training and ex partes. 7. It may be noted in this connection that an interim order was passed by this Court in the writ petition staying the impugned orders of transfers and an application for vacating the interim order has been made by the respondents. Since disposal of the said application for vacating interim order is likely to make the writ petition infructuous for all practical purposes, it was submitted by the writ petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents that the application for vacating the interim order should be better disposed of along with the writ petition itself. 8. Mr. Sarkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the State respondents has contended that the officers of the Civil Defence Organisation are the employees of the State Government. 8. Mr. Sarkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the State respondents has contended that the officers of the Civil Defence Organisation are the employees of the State Government. Accordingly, the State Government being the employer has every right to place any of such officer in a station within the State of West Bengal and it cannot be contended that unless any statutory rules or conditions of service are framed the said officer can not be transferred from the place where he or she is posted. Mr. Sarkar has contended that if the post is a transferable post, the order of transfer can be passed. He has contended that such order of transfer was not dependent on framing of service rules. He has further contended that it is always desirable to have proper service rules for the concerned employees, but it will not be correct stand for the petitioner and/or officers of the Guild to contend that officers of the Civil Defence cannot be transferred so long the rules governing the service conditions are framed by the appropriate authority. Mr. Sarkar has contended that under Section 4 of the Civil Defence Act, 1968, the State Government has power to constitute Civil Defence Corps. He has referred to the compendium of Instructions of Civil Defence (Operations, Organisation and Training) 1980 published under the authority of Director General, Civil Defence, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Referring to clause 6 of Section 1 relating to operations of Civil Defence Organisatian in India, Mr. Sarkar has submitted that the said clause 6 provides for setting up Directors of Civil Defence in the States and Union Territories. It has been provided that the State Government may for the purpose of coordinating the activities of the Controllers of Civil Defence within the State, appoint a Director of Civil Defence. He has also contended that as a matter of fact such Director has been appointed by the States Government. Referring to clause 12 relating to financial policies of the Civil Defence Organisation in India, Mr. Sarkar has contended that under clause 8, the expenditure only on the post authorised by the Ministry of Home Affairs are poolable and shareable but the expenditure on unauthorised posts will have to be borne by the State Governments themselves. Referring to clause 12 relating to financial policies of the Civil Defence Organisation in India, Mr. Sarkar has contended that under clause 8, the expenditure only on the post authorised by the Ministry of Home Affairs are poolable and shareable but the expenditure on unauthorised posts will have to be borne by the State Governments themselves. For civil defence towns like Calcutta, Bombay and Delhi, separate staff has been authorised considering their special requirements and the expenditures on which are poolable and shareable, Mr. Sarkar has also referred to clause 14 relating to expenditure on non-classified towns. It has been held that in addition to Civil Defence Towns i.e. Category I and II towns, State Government/Union Territory Administrations may decide to take any civil defence measures in any other town/area in their State at their discretion, but the expenditure on these measures is not poolable, and is to be borne entirely by the State or the Union Territory concerned. Mr. Sarkar has contended that outside the limited and/or classified towns of zones, the State Government in the its discretion is quite competent to maintain Civil Defence Organisation and post the employees of the Civil Defence Organisation of the State including the members of the Guild. He has contended that the State Government has right to decide whether a Civil Defence Organisation with the regular staff of that organisation of the State Government should be maintained in a particular area and it is not necessary that only in the tows or zones specified by the Central Government, the officers of the Civil Defence Organisation should be pasted. He has contended that how the service of the officers of the Civil Defence Organisation should be gainfully utilised must be left at the wisdom of the State Government and such Policy decision is not not justiceable. The petitioner and/or the members of the Guild should not be permitted to contend that in the non-classified towns or zones by the Central Government, they cannot be posted by the State Government although they are employees of the State Government. Mr. Sarkar has contended that the services of the members of the Civil Defence Organisatian are also. required to be taken in non-specified zones or towns. Mr. Sarkar has contended that the services of the members of the Civil Defence Organisatian are also. required to be taken in non-specified zones or towns. He has contended that as a matter of fact, many of the officers are still posted in towns or zones which have not been classified by the Central Government either as Category I or II towns or zones. Mr. Sarkar has contended that for a long time, no general orders of transfer bad been passed and such orders had been restricted mostly in cases of employees seeking transfers on their own or making representation on the scare of personal hardship. The State Government has thought it desirable to place the officers of the Civil Defence Organisation to different stations including non-specified towns and/or zones so that the service of the officers are made available to the places where they will be posted on transfer. Mr. Sarkar has submitted that no Government servant or an employee of a public Undertaking has a right to remain absent from duty without sanction of leave merely on account of pendency of representation against the order of transfer. If the post is a transferable post and a public servant is transferred he has to carry out the order of transfer and join the transferred post and if there is genuine difficulty he could made a representation, but if the order of transfer is not stayed by the concerned authority despite such representation, the concerned employee' cannot but obey the order of transfer. In support of his contention, he has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court made in the case of (1) Gujrat State Electricity Board v. A.S. Poshan reported in 1989(2) SCC 602 . Mr. Sarkar has stated that many of the officers of the Civil Defence Organisation have accepted the orders of transfer without any objection and have joined their places of posting. It is only same of the officers, claiming to be the members of the said Officers' Guild are refusing to carry out the orders of transfer and the instant writ petition has been moved by Mr. Mukherjee as the General Secretary of such Guild. It is only same of the officers, claiming to be the members of the said Officers' Guild are refusing to carry out the orders of transfer and the instant writ petition has been moved by Mr. Mukherjee as the General Secretary of such Guild. It may be noted in this connection that initially no list of members of the said Guild was furnished but later on such list has been furnished before this Court with a copy to the learned Counsel for the State respondents. Mr. Sarkar has contended that because an interim order has been passed by staying the operations of the impugned orders relating to the members of the Guild the said general orders of transfer have become ineffective to a considerable extent. Mr. Sarkar has submitted that there is no just cause for which the orders of transfer should be stayed only on the plea that conditions of service have not been properly framed for the officers of the Guild and in the absence of service rules, the orders of transfer cannot be effectively made. Mr. Sarkar has also submitted that mere assertion that the training and ex partes of the officers cannot be gainfully utilised if they are posted in non-specified towns or zones should not be accepted by this Court. The State Government is quire competent to decide that the training and ex partes of such officers should also be utilised in other zones where the State Government feels that the Civil Defence Organisation should properly function and the State Government is free to extend civil defence set up in such non-specified areas. 9. In reply to the aforesaid contention of Mr. Sarkar, Mr. Mukherjee has contended that the state respondents have not been able to place any material before the Court as to how the services of the officers arc intended to be utilised gainfully in non-specified areas and zones. Mr. Mukherjee has contended when admittedly the orders of transfers have been passed on the basis of representations made by some of the employees, the case of administrative exigency is ruled out ex facie. Mr. Mr. Mukherjee has contended when admittedly the orders of transfers have been passed on the basis of representations made by some of the employees, the case of administrative exigency is ruled out ex facie. Mr. Mukherjee has submitted that even if State Government is competent to pass orders of posting within the jurisdiction of the State Government, the requirement of some norms or guide lines concerning/the conditions of service of the permanent staff in Civil Defence Organisation are essentially necessary for passing appropriate orders of transfer so as to serve administrative exigency and/or public interest. He has contended that the transfer is a very important incident of service. The validity, legality and/or propriety of the impugned orders of transfer are required to be considered to the Court in the proper perspective and also in the backdrop of events indicated hereinbefore. 10. After considering the respective submissions made by Mr. Mukherjee and Mr. Sarkar the learned Counsel for the State Respondents it appears to me, that effective utilisation of the service of a Government employee is in the very core of administrative exigency. It is an accepted position in law that even if a service is transferable, an employee in public employment cannot be transferred on mere ipse dixit of the superior authority having power to make an order of transfer. The administrative exigency and/or public interest must be fulfilled before passing the order of transfer against an employee. A transfer is a very important incidence of service and often the order of transfer which may appear inocuous cause serious hardship to the concerned employee. It should be noted in this connection that how best the service of a Government employee can be utilised must be left to the wisdom of the employer and for that purpose, to the appropriate authorities in a public service. Whether the service of a Government employee can be better utilised in some other place is no, a justiceable issue in a court of law. Whether the service of a Government employee can be better utilised in some other place is no, a justiceable issue in a court of law. It will be sufficient to sustain an order of transfer if it can be shown that the service is a transferable one and by the Impugned order of transfer, no condition of service or the norm laid down for such transfer has been violated and that a proper consideration of administrative exigency and/or public interest has been made by the concerned authority and on being satisfied of such administrative exigency and/or public interest, the order of transfer has been made. It, however, appears to me that for about 26 years, the Civil Defence Organisation has been set up in the State of West Bengal and a Permanent Staff is being maintained in the Civil Defence Department under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of West Bengal. But unfortunately no condition of service, rules for promotion, the norm for transfer etc. have been framed as yet for the permanent employees in the Civil Defence Organisation. Any executive instruction in the aforesaid matters has also not been placed before this Court by the learned Counsel appearing for the State respondents. Even the duties required to be performed by the officers of the Civil Defence Organisation have not been indicated and Mr. Mukherjee has submitted before this court that in the absence of any policy and/or guide lines indicating the duties and functions to be performed by the officers of Civil Defence Organisation of the State Government, such officers are often directed to do errand and trival jobs completely dissociated with the ex partes and training of such officers, It is for want of any specific policy of utilizing she officers in suitable job concerning the Civil Defence Department they are directed to attend such errand and trivial duties merely on the basis of the ipse dixit or the superior authority. It may be noted here that in the absence of specifying the service to be rendered by the officers of the Civil Defence Department and/or the principle and/or norms to be followed in the matter of transfer of such officers, it would be very difficult to appreciate the administrative exigency involved in the matter of transfer. It may however, be noted that there cannot be any absolute proposition as sought to be contended by Mr. It may however, be noted that there cannot be any absolute proposition as sought to be contended by Mr. Mukherjee that in the absence of service conditions framed by the appropriate authority. no order of transfer can be passed against the officers of the Civil Defence Department. It is also not correct to contend that the officers of the Civil Defence Department cannot be sent to the zones not specified by the Central Government. The State Govt. in my opinion, will be free to take decision for extending the works of Civil Defence Department in non-specified zones. The consideration as to whether expenses in such areas are to be borne exclusively by the State Government or it will be shareable or poolable is not at all germane for consideration of the validity of the order of transfer. Unfortunately, however the State respondents have not yet been able to place before the court as to how the officers of the Civil Defence Department may be gainfully utilised in non-specified zones. No policy decision for effective utilisation of such officers appears to have been taken by the State Government and no such material has been placed before this court to substantiate that the impugned transfer orders have been passed for effective implementation of any scheme or policy of the State Government to utilise the ex partes and training of the officers of the Civil Defence Department particularly in non-specified areas and by that process administrative exigency is satisfied. Mr. Mukherjee has contended that when an order of transfer is made on the basis of representation of an employee such order of transfer on the face of it is not on the score administrative exigency. Such contention, however, should not be accepted as an absolute proposition. If on account of some unmerited hardship a Government employee makes a representation for transfer from a particular station and the concerned authority is satisfied that such officer should be relieved of such unmerited hardship and should be posted elsewhere, in my view, the administrative exigency is also satisfied because the administration has a duty to look into the interest and welfare of the employees and utilise their services in suitable places so that the concerned department gets the proper service by the concerned employee and at the same time unmerited hardship suffered by such employees is also lessened. If for such accommodation of an employee in another station a necessity arises to transfer a Government employee to the post where the other employee is posted, such order of transfer also satisfies the administrative exigency in its broader perspective. In the instant case, orders of transfers have been passed against large number of officers and some of the officers have already joined their respective place of posting. Although it does not appear to me that the State Government is not competent to pass appropriate orders of transfer against the officers of the Civil Defence Department to unspecified areas or zones, in the absence of relevant materials placed before the Court, I am unable to hold that proper consideration of administrative exigency or public interest has been made in passing the impugned orders of transfer. In the facts of the case, it appears to me there is some force in the contention of Mr. Mukherjee that no proper consideration of effective utilization of the concerned officers have been made and orders of transfers have been made at random without application of mind to the relevant factors concerning an order of transfer. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by staying the impugned orders of transfer for a period of three months from today. The employees including the members of the officers of the Guild represented by the petitioner Shri Mukherjee suffering the order of transfer may make representation against impugned orders of transfer passed against such officers within four weeks from today. Such representation should be considered by the appropriate authority after taking into consideration of relevant factors concerning an order of transfer and thereafter pass necessary orders of transfer and/or to give effect to the Impugned orders of transfer with such modification as would appear just and proper. This order however will not affect the posting of the officers who have already joined their respective place of posting in terms of the impugned orders of transfer. It is only desirable that the State Government should give guidelines about the norms of transfer and the jobs to be performed by the officers of the Civil Defence Department by indicating the Controlling Officers in areas whether specified or unspecified under whom the officers of the Civil Defence Department will work so that appropriate orders of transfer are made on consideration of such guidelines. It has been submitted before me by Mr. Mukherjee that the Secretary, Department or Home being the Head of the Department of Home, Government of West Bengal is also the highest authority of the Civil Defence Department. In the fitness of things, appropriate consideration about the guidelines of transfer, promotion and job specifications etc. in the light of the above observation should be made in consultation with and/or approval of the Secretary, Department of Home who is the highest administrative officer of the concerned department. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of by treating the same as on day's list. But there will be no order as to costs. Application for further order and for addition of parties are also disposed of. All parties to act on signed copy of the operative part of the judgment.