JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Das 1. By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order, dated 18.03.2011 (Annexure A/17), issued by the State-respdts on the ground that the same has been issued in utter violation and/or infraction of relevant laws, rules and guidelines of the Government and that the impugned order is an example of favouritism and nepotism and therefore, prayed for setting aside and quashing the order. 2. As consented by learned counsels of both sides this writ petition is taken up for disposal at admission stage itself. 3. Heard learned counsel, Mr. A Hemchandra for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate, Mr. S Nepolean for the respdt Nos.1 to 4 and learned counsel, Mr. Y Nirmolchand for private respdt No.5. 4. Bereft of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner is that he had joined Manipur Health Service, on 06.06.1979, as a Medical Officer (GDO) after having done his MBBS degree and thereafter he served in different capacity in different posts under the Government. He has done Post Graduate Diploma in Ophthalmology from the Gauhati University and also successfully undergone various courses and trainings on Ophthalmology and has succeeded as an expert on the subject. He has been working as a senior Ophthalmologist of the Government of Manipur and has since attached to Central Mobile Ophthalmic Unit, Imphal, as a senior Eye Specialist. The Government of Manipur vide order, dated 25.07.2002 (Annexure A/7A), issued by the Health and Family Welfare Department, formulated a policy regarding transfer, posting etc. of the officers working under the Department of Health and Family welfare of the Government and prescribed 2(two) Committees consisting of 4(four) members in each of the Committee to recommend all transfer and posting of the officers of Class-I, Class-II, Class-III and Class-IV and it has been stipulated in the policy that while considering the transfer and posting proposals the Committee should follow the general principles, as laid down in the said policy. Any transfer and posting without recommendation of that Committee shall be treated as null and void. The policy consists of 10 guidelines which were to be followed by the Committee while recommending the transfer and posting. Any transfer and posting without recommendation of that Committee shall be treated as null and void. The policy consists of 10 guidelines which were to be followed by the Committee while recommending the transfer and posting. It is further stated by the petitioner that National Programme for Control of Blindness (NPCB), is a centrally sponsored scheme, launched in the year 1976 with the goal was/is to reduce the prevalence of blindness and for implementation of the programme under NPCB, State Blindness Control Society and District Blindness Control Society etc. were formulated, and according to the guidelines, issued by the Central Government under the scheme a medical officer of the State Government, who is an Ophthalmologist should hold the post of State Programme Officer to implement different schemes under the programme in letter and spirit. The State Government, considering the necessity and wide experience and qualification of the petitioner, as a senior ophthalmologist, on the recommendation of the Committee, constituted under the Government order dated 25.07.2002 issued order, dated 21.02.2011, in the name of the Governor, in the public interest and appointed the petitioner as State Programme Officer, NPCB, Manipur in addition to his normal duty. For ready reference and for fair appreciation Annexure A/8 is reproduced here which reads thus: Government of Manipur Secretariat : Health Department ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR : MANIPUR Imphal the 21st February, 2011. No. 5/8/97-M (Pt.I) : On the recommendation of the Committee on Transfer and Posting of MHS Medical Officers in its meeting held on 21.02.2011, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to order the transfer and posting of the following MHS Doctors from their present place of posting to the new place noted against their names with immediate effect and until further orders in public interest :- Sl. No. Name & Designation & present place of posting New place of posting 1. Dr. H. Hasobanta Singh, Paediatrician, Dist. Hospital Thoubal District Hospital, Bishnupur 2. Dr. T. Dinamani Singh, Anaesthetist, Dist. Hospital, Churachandpur MO i/c, CHC, Moirang 3. Dr. Th. Impchoubi Singh, i/c Gynaecologist, CHC, Kakching CHC, Moirang 4. Dr. Lalthari Hmar, Medico Legal Expert, JNH/JNIMS, Porompat CMO, Imphal West and to be utilized at CMO Office, Churachandpur as Medico Legal Officer. 5. Dr. Tingloei Thanglu MO, Dist Hospital, Churanchandpur To work in her specialty i.e. as i/c Anaesthetist District Hospital, Churanchandpur 6. Dr. K Gaithaorung, Addl. Dr. Th. Impchoubi Singh, i/c Gynaecologist, CHC, Kakching CHC, Moirang 4. Dr. Lalthari Hmar, Medico Legal Expert, JNH/JNIMS, Porompat CMO, Imphal West and to be utilized at CMO Office, Churachandpur as Medico Legal Officer. 5. Dr. Tingloei Thanglu MO, Dist Hospital, Churanchandpur To work in her specialty i.e. as i/c Anaesthetist District Hospital, Churanchandpur 6. Dr. K Gaithaorung, Addl. Medical Supdt., JN Hospital, Porompat CMO, Tamenglong 7. Dr. L. Saratchandra Singh, CMO, Tamenglong Medical Superintendent, Disrtict Hospital, Senapati 8. Dr. Meena Devi Seram, Medical Directorate, Lamphel working at Imphal Central Jail, Sajiwa Dy. Director (MACS), Lamphelpat 9. Dr. Rajkumari Rosie, Medical Directorate, Lamphel working at Imphal Central Jail, Sajiwa. Dy. Director (MACS), Lamphelpat 10. Dr. Kh. Kaminibabu Singh, Sr. Eye Specialist, Central Mobile Ophthalmic Unit, Imphal State Programme Officer (NPCB), Manipur in addition to his normal duty 11. Dr. Kh. Rajnikanta Singh, State Ophthalmic Officer, Imphal State phthalmic Officer, Imphal. Suitable works to be assigned by Director of Health Services, Manipur By Orders & in the name of Governor. - Sd - (Athem Muivah) Joint Secretary (Health & FW) Government of Manipur Pursuant to the above order, the petitioner has taken over the charge of State Programme Officer (SPO) of NPCB, Manipur and was effectively discharging duties towards implementation of different schemes under the programme. To his utter dismay and surprise the petitioner received order, dated 18.03.2011 (Annexure A/17), issued by the State-respdts whereby the order dated 21.02.2011 was stayed and the petitioner was again posted in his original post i.e. Senior Eye Specialist, Central Mobile Unit, Imphal only and the post of SPO, NPCB was given to the private respdt No.5 and that order was issued without recommendation of the Committee, constituted under the Government order, dated 25.07.2002 and thereby the State Government violated its own policy. Further it is alleged that the order was not issued in the public interest and to favour private respdt No.5 it was issued which is an example of favourtism and nepotism. It is also alleged that respdt No.5 is a simple MBBS having no specialization as an Ophthalmologist. Further it is alleged that the order was not issued in the public interest and to favour private respdt No.5 it was issued which is an example of favourtism and nepotism. It is also alleged that respdt No.5 is a simple MBBS having no specialization as an Ophthalmologist. Under the scheme of NPCB, an ophthalmologist, who is acquainted with the scheme of eradication of blindness and also acquainted with the implementation of the programme, should be posted as SPO and the posting of the respdt No.5 will actually serve no purpose of NPCB and therefore, the petitioner prayed for interfering with the order, dated 18.03.2011. For ready reference and for fair appreciation, the order, dated 18.03.2011 (Annexure A/17) is reproduced which reads as under: Government of Manipur Secretariat : Health Department ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR : MANIPUR Imphal the 18th March, 2011. No. 5/8/97-M(Pt.I) : The Governor of Manipur is pleased to stay the transfer and posting of the following MHS Officers whose names are appearing at Sl.NO.10 and 11 in this Government Orders of even Number dated 21st February, 2011: Sl. No. Name, Designation & present place of posting New place of posting as indicated in this Govt. Orders No.15/8/97-M (Pt.I) dated 21.2.2011 which is stayed now Remarks 1. Dr. Kh. Kaminibabu Singh, Sr. Eye Specialist, Central Mobile Unit, Imphal State Programme Officer (NPCB) in addition to his normal duties He will continue as Sr. Eye Specialist, Central Mobile Unit, Imphal only. 2. Dr. Kh. Rajnikanta Singh, State Ophthalmic Officer, Imphal State Ophthalmic Officer, Imphal He will continue as State Ophthalmic Officer/State Programme Officer (NPCB). By Orders & in the name of Governor. - Sd - (Th. Guni Singh) Deputy Secretary (Health & FW) Government of Manipur 5. The State-respdt did not submit any affidavit-in-opposition. 6. Private respdt No.5 submitted written objection inter alia stating that he has also been working as a medical officer of the Government of Manipur and during his long unblemished service carrier he has served in different capacity including that to the post of Joint Director, Manipur Health Service, Grade-II of the Health Department and he was holding the post of State Ophthalmic Officer w.e.f 24.08.2009. There is nothing in the scheme of NPCB that only an Ophthalmologist should be posted as SPO and none else can be posted. There is nothing in the scheme of NPCB that only an Ophthalmologist should be posted as SPO and none else can be posted. It is also stated that he was holding the post of State Ophthalmic Officer/State Programme Officer/Member Secretary of the Society, as was appointed by the State-respdts, from 24.08.2009 and he is due to retire on 28.02.2012. According to the policy of the Government made under order dated 25.07.2002, he was not supposed to be transferred and posted since it was the last year of his service. The order, dated 18.03.2011, has been rightly issued and there is nothing to interfere in the same. 7. Learned counsel, Mr. Hemchandra, concentrated his argument mainly on two points:- Firstly, that the order dated 21.02.2011 (Annexure 8), was passed by the State Government on the recommendation of the Committee constituted pursuant to order dated 25.07.2002 (Annexure A/7A) and it was issued in public interest and the petitioner, being the senior most Ophthalmologist was considered as the right person for holding the post of SPO of NPCB. The impugned order, dated 18.03.2011, was not issued in the public interest and without any recommendation of the Committee and, therefore, it violates the policy formulated by the State Government and hence the impugned order, dated 18.03.2011, should be set aside. 8. Refuting the argument of learned counsel Mr. Hemchandra, learned Government Advocate, Mr. Nepolean, has submitted that the wife of the petitioner made a representation to the Chief Minister requesting to consider posting of the petitioner as SPO and in consideration of that prayer the petitioner was posted by order, dated 21.02.2011. He has also submitted that the respdt No.5 is due to retire on 29.02.2012 and the Department considering that he is due to retire soon, issued the order, dated 18.03.2011 temporarily staying the order dated 21.02.2011 and though it was not mentioned that the order was issued in the public interest it should be presumed that the same was also issued in the public interest, since the State Government has issued the order. In respect of the recommendation of the Committee it is submitted by learned Government Advocate that the department even without recommendation has the authority to issue the order and there is nothing to interfere in it. 9. Learned counsel Mr. In respect of the recommendation of the Committee it is submitted by learned Government Advocate that the department even without recommendation has the authority to issue the order and there is nothing to interfere in it. 9. Learned counsel Mr. Nirmolchand, appearing for respdt No.5 referring to the general principles stipulated in the policy, dated 25.07.2002, has submitted that the transfer order, dated 21.02.2011, was also not issued in consonance of the guidelines, formulated by the State Government and the respdt, though was in the last year of his service, without assigning reason has been transferred and that the writ petitioner making representation through his wife has also violated the guidelines issued by the State Government. The petitioner cannot reap the benefit of that guideline in this writ petition challenging the order, dated 18.03.2011. He has also submitted that considering the fact that the respdt is going to retire in this month, the order has been issued to avoid complicacy in respect of handing over of charges etc. 10. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsels of both sides. The contention of learned Government Advocate on factual aspect cannot be considered since no affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State-respdts affording opportunity to the petitioner to give response. It is an undisputed fact that the state-respdts issued transfer policy, dated 25.07.2002, with specific stipulation that the transfer and posting should be made only on the recommendation of the Committee and the order, dated 21.02.2011, as reproduced above, was issued in the public interest on the recommendation of that Committee. Respdt No.5 has not challenged that order on any ground as submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Nirmolchand and therefore, the respdt cannot take the plea that the petitioner also violated the guidelines or the general principles stipulated in the said order. A bare perusal of order, dated 18.03.2011, shows that it was neither issued on the recommendation of the Committee nor in the public interest. The petitioner has been holding the post of Senior Eye Specialist, Central Mobile Ophthalmic Unit, Imphal and by the transfer and posting order, dated 21.02.2011, he has been entrusted with the additional charge of SPO, NPCB. A bare perusal of order, dated 18.03.2011, shows that it was neither issued on the recommendation of the Committee nor in the public interest. The petitioner has been holding the post of Senior Eye Specialist, Central Mobile Ophthalmic Unit, Imphal and by the transfer and posting order, dated 21.02.2011, he has been entrusted with the additional charge of SPO, NPCB. The respdt No.5 has been holding the post of State Ophthalmic Officer, Imphal and by order, dated 21.02.2011, he was kept in the post with the stipulation that suitable works may assigned to him by the Director of Health Services, Manipur. There was practically no transfer from one station to another station or from one substantive post to another substantive post. By the order, dated 21.02.2011 both the petitioner and the respdt No.5 were in their original post and the petitioner was assigned with additional duty of SPO, NPCB whereas respdt No.5 was not assigned with any additional duty at once and Director, Health Services was directed to assign suitable duty. The impugned order, dated 18.03.2011 since neither issued in public interest nor on the recommendation of the Committee, the order cannot sustain. The State Government while formulated its own policy cannot violate the same unless in the exceptional case of public interest. The impugned order, dated 18.03.2011, is therefore liable to be interfered on the sole ground. 11. The next argument advanced by learned counsel, Mr. Hemchandra, is that the respdt No.5 is not qualified to be appointed as SPO. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate, Mr. Nepolean and learned counsel, Mr. Nirmolchand submitted that there is nothing to show that only an Ophthalmologist is eligible to be posted as SPO. The respdt No.5, being a State Ophthalmic Officer, was eligible to be appointed to the post and he was actually holding the post before the order, dated 21.02.2011, was issued. I find no force at all in the argument advanced by learned counsel, Mr. Hemchandra. It is the absolute authority of the State Government to utilize the services of its officers/employees in the manner the Government desires unless there are specific rules/guidelines for such utilization of the services. In the scheme of NPCB there is nothing that unless a person is an Ophthalmologist he cannot be appointed as SPO of NPCB. Hemchandra. It is the absolute authority of the State Government to utilize the services of its officers/employees in the manner the Government desires unless there are specific rules/guidelines for such utilization of the services. In the scheme of NPCB there is nothing that unless a person is an Ophthalmologist he cannot be appointed as SPO of NPCB. No doubt, the petitioner is a senior Ophthalmologist and might be considering his qualification and experience the State Government on the recommendation of the Committee assigned him with the additional charge of SPO but that does not mean that respdt No.5 is/was ineligible for the post of SPO. This argument of the learned counsel of the petitioner has no merit and hence rejected. 12. In view of the foregoing discussions the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 18.03.2011 (Annexure A/17 to the writ petition) is set aside and quashed. 13. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Parties are to bear their own costs.