1. This batch of writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The issue raised in all these writ petitions is the same. The issue is whether a Mandal or a Lat Mandal can seek transfer to a place outside the district in which he was appointed or whether the authority can transfer him to a place outside the district where he was appointed and is serving. In other words, can there be inter-district transfer of a Mandal? 3. Facts in all the cases are more or less similar. Therefore, a detailed narration of facts in all the cases is considered not necessary. However, for the sake of convenience, facts of WP(C) No. 6030/2012 are narrated in brief. 4. Petitioner is a matriculate. He had successfully undergone a 6 months Special Recorders Certificate Class Course Training in the Assam Survey and Settlement Training Centre, Guwahati in the year 2004. He is qualified to be appointed as Lat Mandal. He is a permanent resident of Chirang district 5. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat, petitioner applied for the post of Mandal. Following a selection process, petitioner was appointed as Mandal on the basis of merit along with others vide order dated 2nd/6th September, 2006 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat. By the said order, 39 persons were appointed as Mandal and their services were placed at the disposal of the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat for posting in the existing vacancies subject to satisfactory police verification and medical report. Following the appointment order, petitioner joined as Mandal. Thereafter, order dated 8.12.2006 was issued by the Circle Officer, Jorhat (West) Circle, whereby petitioner was asked to function as full fledged Lat Mandal of Lat No. 2, Baligaon mouza w.e.f. 8.12.2006. 6. According to the petitioner, he hails from Chirang/district, which is under Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC), Assam. His wife and two little daughters reside at his native village in Chirang district. His wife; submitted an application before the BTC authorities requesting transfer of her husband from Jorhat district to Chirang district citing personal difficulty. The matter was forwarded to the office of the Director of Land Records and Surveys, Assam, who in turn sought for the views of the concerned Deputy Commissioners. His wife; submitted an application before the BTC authorities requesting transfer of her husband from Jorhat district to Chirang district citing personal difficulty. The matter was forwarded to the office of the Director of Land Records and Surveys, Assam, who in turn sought for the views of the concerned Deputy Commissioners. Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat informed the office of the Director of Land Records and Surveys that there was no objection to the prayer for inter-district transfer of the petitioner from Jorhat district to Chirang district. Similar views were expressed by the BTC authorities. 7. As per Clause 3A of the Government notification No. RLR.38/83/7 dated 5.9.1985, which forms part of the Assam Land Records Manual No. 4, on the proposal/views received from the concerned Deputy Commissioner, Director of Land Records may transfer a Recorder (Mandal) from one district to another district. 8. One Nur Mahammad Ali and eight others claiming to be Additional Mandals engaged in settlement operation in the district of Dhubri filed a writ petition before this curt seeking consideration of their cases for absorption as regular Mandals in the establishment of Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri. The said writ petition was registered and numbered as WP(C) No. 982/2011. This court passed an order on 25.5.2011 taking the view that the State respondents should rationalize the policy of appointment of Mandals in the State of Assam. It was directed that the State respondents should not fill up any post of Mandal in any of the districts in Assam without obtaining leave of the court 9. One Shri Girish Nath filed an application seeking modification of the above order dated 25.5.2011. The said application was registered as Misc. Case No. 907/2012. The applicant Shri Girish Nath was serving as Mandal in the district of Dhemaji. He hailed from the district of Darrang and because of his ailing parents, he had put in a request before the authorities for his transfer from Dhemaji to Darrang. His request was not considered by the Director of Land Records and Surveys in view of the order of this court dated 25.5.2011. The Director stated that his prayer would be considered after receipt of the policy decision taken by the Government or on the vacation of the ban imposed on the filling up of the post of Mandal. 10. This court by order dated 5.4.2012 disposed of Misc. The Director stated that his prayer would be considered after receipt of the policy decision taken by the Government or on the vacation of the ban imposed on the filling up of the post of Mandal. 10. This court by order dated 5.4.2012 disposed of Misc. Case No. 9.07/2012 by modifying the order dated 25.5.2011 by holding that there would be no bar to consider the transfer of the applicant from Dhemaji to Darrang. 11. Thereafter, a policy has been framed by the Government of Assam for absorption of Additional Mandals. The said policy is dated 3.5.2012. As per clause 1 of the said policy, it has been declared that henceforth there shall be no. transfer of Mandals from one district to another. 12. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the aforesaid policy dated 3.5.2012 and for a direction to the respondents to transfer him from Jorhat district to Chirang district. 13. The contention of the petitioner is that the State could not have framed a policy which completely prohibits transfer of Mandals from one district to another district in all circumstances. Such an absolute bar would be violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. Further contention is that the said policy would nullify rule 3A of the Government notification dated 5.9.1985 which forms part of the Assam Land Records Manual, which permitted transfer of a Mandal from one district to another district by the Director of Land Records and Surveys on receipt of proposal from the concerned Deputy Commissioner. It is also contended that the policy goes beyond the observations of this court in the order dated 25.5.2011. 14. Respondents 2, 3 and 4 have filed affidavit. Stand taken in the affidavit is that Mandals are the lowest grass-root level revenue officials and they are required to be fully acquainted with the particulars of the locality, record of rights etc. Before appointment as Mandals, they have to undergo 6 months training successfully. For undergoing such training, district-wise vacancy position is considered and the number of candidates selected for such training is decided depending on the vacancy position of the concerned districts. This is done to ensure appointment of local candidates as Mandal. Under Rule 6 of the Assam Land Records Manual, a recorder is expected to make his home in his lat permanently and reside there with his family. This is done to ensure appointment of local candidates as Mandal. Under Rule 6 of the Assam Land Records Manual, a recorder is expected to make his home in his lat permanently and reside there with his family. However, the Deputy Commissioner is authorized to grant exemption from this Rule in a case where he is satisfied that insistence on such a requirement would cause undue hardship or when the Recorder’s home is within two miles of the lat. However, only after insertion of rule 3A in 1985, inter-district transfer of Mandals or Recorders became permissible. But now, in view of framing of the policy on 3.5.2012, it is contended that such transfer is no longer permissible and, therefore, prayer of the petitioner for inter-district transfer cannot be accepted. The respondents have admitted that on earlier occasions, for absorbing Additional Mandals against vacant permanent posts and also for not having adequate number of qualified candidates, some Mandals were recruited from outside the concerned district. Since they were recruited keeping aside the criteria of permanent residence, it is expected to utilize their services in the districts in which they were recruited. Hence, the necessity arose for imposing a ban on inter-district transfer. 15. Similar affidavits have been filed by the said respondents in the other cases. 16. Affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the Director of Land Records and Surveys in WP(C) No. 4787/2012. It is stated therein that the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district is the appointing authority for the post of Mandal (Recorder) in his establishment. In matters of selection and appointment of Mandal, the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district is the competent authority. In view of the policy decision framed by the Government stopping inter-district transfer of Mandals, case of the petitioners for such transfer cannot be considered. It is further stated that provisions of the Assam Land Records Manual are in the nature of executive instructions arid can be amended by issuing subsequent executive instructions It is also contended that the policy decision dated 3.5.2012 would have the effect of superseding clause 3A of the Assam Land Records Manual, inserted in 1985. 17. Heard Mrs. M.D, Choudhury and Mr. A.K. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. J. Handique, learned Government Advocate, Assam. Also heard Mrs. V.L. Singh and Mr. S. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, Government of Assam. Mr. 17. Heard Mrs. M.D, Choudhury and Mr. A.K. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. J. Handique, learned Government Advocate, Assam. Also heard Mrs. V.L. Singh and Mr. S. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, Government of Assam. Mr. M. Choudhury, learned counsel has appeared for the Director of Land Records and Surveys. 18. Mrs, M.D. Choudhury, learned counsel leading the argument on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the policy framed by the State prohibiting inter-district transfer of Mandals in all circumstances without any exception would be wholly unfair, arbitrary and unreasonable, thereby violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. Mandals are Government servants. Transfer is an incidence of service. To have a policy which completely rules out transfer of a particular category of Government servants in all circumstances would neither be justified nor permissive. She, therefore, prays for interference by this court in the said policy. 19. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have adopted a similar line of argument. They have contended that though a Mandal is a Government servant but he is required to be fully conversant with the particulars of the area of which he is the Mandal and, therefore, it is necessary that the Mandal should be a local person. Considering the nature of work of a Mandal, appointment of Mandals from outside the revenue district was not visualized. Only after insertion of rule 3A in the year 1985, inter-district transfer of Mandals became permissible but even then also, the procedure prescribed was such that only in exceptional cases, inter-district transfer could be resorted to and not in a routine manner. Contending that no legal rights of the petitioners have been infringed learned counsel for the respondents seek dismissal of the writ petitions. 20. In her brief reply, Mrs. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on rule 3A of the Government notification dated 5.9.1985 which forms part of the Assam Land Records Manual and submits that by framing the impugned policy, State cannot dilute such a provision. 21. Submissions made have been considered. 22. A perusal of the policy prepared by the Government for absorption of Additional Mandals would show that the same has been framed following the order of this court dated 25.5.2011 passed in WP (C) No. 982/2011. 21. Submissions made have been considered. 22. A perusal of the policy prepared by the Government for absorption of Additional Mandals would show that the same has been framed following the order of this court dated 25.5.2011 passed in WP (C) No. 982/2011. The said writ petition was filed by a group of Additional Mandals engaged in settlement operation in the district of Dhubri. Though they were absorbed as regular Mandals in the establishment of Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur, they could not join their services there because of local resistance. In such circumstances, they filed the said writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to consider their cases for absorption as regular Mandals in Dhubri district against the existing vacancies. The further prayer was not to fill up the vacancies of Mandal in Dhubri district till such consideration. 23. As already noticed above, this court observed vide order dated 25.5.2011 that the State respondents should rationalize the policy of appointment of Mandals in the State of Assam. Interim order was passed restraining the State respondents from filling up any post of Mandal in any of the districts in Assam without obtaining leave of the court. 24. In compliance to the aforesaid order of this court, the State has framed a policy under the caption “Absorption of Additional Mandal” after considering the views expressed by the learned Advocate General and the Legal Remembrancer. The introductory portion of the aforesaid policy reads as under: “Two categories of mandal are now working in the State. Those who are working under the permanent establishment of Deputy Commissioner come under one category and are called Mandal/Patowary. The Mandals/ Patowaries who are working under the Settlement Officers in different Settlement Operation Schemes come under the other category and are called Additional Mandal/Patowary. The settlement operation schemes are temporary and the Additional Mandals/Patowaries of these schemes are required to be retrenched from service with the closure of the schemes. Most of the Additional Mandals/Patowaries have already rendered a fairly long period of service and their retrenchment is not advisable on humanitarian consideration. With a view to ensure that no Additional Mandal/Patowary becomes jobless, the Additional Mandals/ Patowaries have been absorbed till recently against permanent vacant posts of Mandal/Patowary under the establishments of different Deputy Commissioners. Most of the Additional Mandals/Patowaries have already rendered a fairly long period of service and their retrenchment is not advisable on humanitarian consideration. With a view to ensure that no Additional Mandal/Patowary becomes jobless, the Additional Mandals/ Patowaries have been absorbed till recently against permanent vacant posts of Mandal/Patowary under the establishments of different Deputy Commissioners. One Additional Mandal, namely, Nur Mahammed Ali, who is working under the SO, Dhubri and Kokrajhar had filed a writ petition bearing No. 982/2011 before the hon’ble Gauhati High Court challenging a transfer of one Mandal to Dhubri district from another district with the apprehension that his prospect of absorption against permanent post of Mandal in the establishment of the DC, Dhubri would be hampered by such District transfer of Mandal. The hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 25.5.2011 had viewed that the State respondents need to rationalize the policy of appointment of Mandals in the State. The hon’ble High Court had further directed that the State respondents should not without obtaining leave of that court, fill up any post of Mandal in any of the Districts of Assam”. 25. Thereafter, the various clauses of the policy have been laid down, which are as under: “1. Henceforth there shall be no transfer of Mandal from one District to another. 2. Whenever vacancies of Mandal/Patowary arise in a District, the Deputy Commissioner will call for applications to fill up the same as per the existing Rules and Procedures. 3. Not-only the RCCC trained candidates, but also the Additional Mandal/Patowary will be free to apply against the advertisement issued by a Deputy Commissioner/Appointing Authority. 4. Due weight-age and preference shall be given by Selection Committee to the Additional Mandal/Patowary depending upon the length of service rendered by him/her. 5. Relaxation/condonation of age in respect of Additional Mandal/Patowary, if necessary, shall be allowed as a matter of policy. 6. Protection of pay of the Additional Mandal/Patowary on appointment as Mandal/Patowary in D.C.’s permanent establishment will be granted as per Rules in force. 7. This cancels earlier notification’s No. RLR 92/95/Pt/163, dated 11.2.2009 and No. RSS 784/2008/7, dated 19.9.2008 issued by Revenue and DM Department. 8. In the event of closure of Settlement Operation, all staff including Additional Mandal will be retrenched. 7. This cancels earlier notification’s No. RLR 92/95/Pt/163, dated 11.2.2009 and No. RSS 784/2008/7, dated 19.9.2008 issued by Revenue and DM Department. 8. In the event of closure of Settlement Operation, all staff including Additional Mandal will be retrenched. On retrenchment of any Additional Mandal/Patowary from service on closure of Settlement Operation, he will automatically be governed by the already existing policy of Government for absorption of retrenched personnel communicated vide Personnel (B) Department’s O.M. No. ABP 47/ 78/16, dated 30.6.1979 read with O.M. No. ABP 278/77/136 (A), dated 16.7.1979 (copy enclosed).” 26. Thus, it appears that as per the above policy, it has been decided that henceforth there shall be no transfer of Mandal from one district to another. 27. WP(C) No. 982/2011 was finally disposed of by this court by the order dated 6.9.2012. This court noticed the policy decision dated 3.5.2012 and took the view that cases of those petitioners deserve consideration for regular absorption as Mandals against existing vacancies in Dhubri district. Accordingly, the State respondents were directed to consider the cases of those petitioners for absorption as Mandals in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri on the basis of seniority along with other Additional Mandals of that district. In the meanwhile, it was ordered that 9 (nine) posts of Mandal in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri should not be filled up. The writ petition was closed with the observation that the interim order passed earlier, (i.e., on 25.5.2011) stood merged with the said final order. The relevant portion of the order dated 6.9.2012 reads as under: “It is not in dispute that the petitioners were engaged as Additional Mandals during settlement operation in Dhubri district and presently they have been working as such. The petitioners, however, were absorbed as Mandals and posted in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur vide order dated 25.2,2009, pursuant to which though the petitioners made an attempt, they were not successful as they were not allowed to join in the said establishment. The representations were thereafter filed by the petitioners, upon consideration of which the Government of Assam had taken a decision that those additional Mandals shall be considered for absorption, in order of seniority, against the clear vacancy of the post of Mandal in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioners of the respective districts, with due approval of the Finance (SIU) Department. The said decision was communicated to the Director of Land Records and Surveys, Assam vide communication dated 1.6.2009. The case of the petitioners, as noticed above, is that despite such clear direction issued and the decision taken by the Government of Assam, their cases for regular absorption in Dhubri district against the existing vacancy has not been considered. The Government of Assam in the meantime has taken a fresh policy decision on 3.5.2012 relating to consideration of the absorption of the Additional Mandals against the existing vacancies of Mandal with further stipulation that the fresh recruitment shall not be made unless the case of the additional Mandals, who are retrenched, are considered. By such policy decision the earlier notifications dated 11.2.2009 and 19.9.2008 have been cancelled. It also appears from the said policy decision that there shall be no transfer from one district to another. The petitioners, therefore, deserve to be considered for regular absorption as Mandals against the existing vacancy, if any, in Dhubri district. Hence, the State respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for absorption as Mandals in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri, maintaining seniority and along with other Additional Mandals, if any, in that district, within a period of 3(three) months from today. In the meantime, nine posts of Mandals in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri, if available, shall not be filled up. It is needless to say that in the event, adequate number of regular posts of Mandal is not available, consideration for absorption of Additional Mandals shall be made on seniority basis. It is also needless to say that the interim order passed earlier has merged with the final order passed.” 28. There is no dispute at the bar that Mandals are Government servants, engaged in the revenue administration at the grass-root level. As pointed out in the affidavits filed by the respondents, the- appointing authority of Mandal is the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district, who conducts the recruitment process. At this stage, it may be useful to briefly examine one of the advertisements issued by the Deputy Commissioner for appointment of Mandal. In WP(C) No. 6101/2012, a copy of such advertisement issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur is annexed. At this stage, it may be useful to briefly examine one of the advertisements issued by the Deputy Commissioner for appointment of Mandal. In WP(C) No. 6101/2012, a copy of such advertisement issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur is annexed. For ready reference, the same is quoted hereunder: “GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER:: SONITPUR:: TEZPUR ADVERTISEMENT Application are invited in standard form from the intending candidates meeting the following criteria who are Indians citizen for filling up 19(Nineteen) Vacant posts of Mandal and 6(six) vacant Post Chairman in the scale of pay Rs. 2890-60-3480-90-3670-EB-90-4480-120-5200-175-5725 P.M. for Lot Mandals and in the scale of pay Rs. 2450-40-2770-EB-60-3490-90-3670 P.M. for Chainman plus other allowances as admissible under the rules issued from time-to-time. Application along with qualification and certificate of age proof should be submitted to the undersigned on or before 22nd October, 2009. Preference will be given to ST(P)/SC and other backlog reserved categories and compassionate ground, appointment as per court orders and to existing Additional Mandals working under settlement operation scheme. Candidates for the Post of Chainman have to deposit Rs. 500 for General and Rs. 3.00 for backlog reserve categories for treasury challan under the Head of Account “0029” LR. 1. Qualification: For Mandals: Minimum education qualification HSLC passed along with RCCC Training from Assam Survey and Settlement Training Centre, Guwahati. For Chainman: — Class VIII passed 2. Age: Candidate must not be less than eighteen years and more than forty-five years of age on 1.9.2009 for Mandals. And candidate must not be less than 18 (eighteen) years and more than 38 (thirty eight) years of age on 1.9.2009 for Chainman. ST(P)/SC candidates will be eligible to get relaxation of age as per Government rules. 3. LAST DATE OF SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION: - 22.10.2009 during office hours. Candidates for the post of Mandal are to appear for an interview on 3.11.2009 and candidates for the Post of Chainman are to appear for an interview on 4.11.2009 at the Deputy Commissioner’s Office, Sonitpur, Tezpur at 11 a.m. at their own expense. No separate calling letters will be issued to intending candidates. This advertisement has been issued vide Government approval letter No. RLR/Estt.-49/2009/6 dated 5.3.2009. Sd/-illegible (Sri Rajesh Prasad, IAS) Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur, Tezpur.” 29. Thus, from a close scrutiny of the aforesaid advertisement it can be seen that it was an open advertisement for all Indian citizens. No separate calling letters will be issued to intending candidates. This advertisement has been issued vide Government approval letter No. RLR/Estt.-49/2009/6 dated 5.3.2009. Sd/-illegible (Sri Rajesh Prasad, IAS) Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur, Tezpur.” 29. Thus, from a close scrutiny of the aforesaid advertisement it can be seen that it was an open advertisement for all Indian citizens. The advertisement did not indicate that preference would be given to local candidates of the district or that once appointed; a Mandal would not be able to seek transfer to outside the district. 30. While it is true that Mandals are grass-root level revenue officers and, therefore, knowledge of local conditions is very essential, however, respondents have themselves admitted that in recent times, recruitment to the post of Mandal in various districts were made from candidates from outside the districts. If that be so, putting an embargo on inter-district transfer of Mandals without any exception will not only be harsh on the concerned Mandals but will also be arbitrary. In certain circumstances, it may become oppressive. Transfer and posting of Government servants is within the realm of administration. Transfer is an incidence of service. Therefore, the State cannot be denuded of its power to transfer a Government servant in the exigencies of administration. Likewise, the Government servant also cannot be denied an opportunity to seek transfer. However, considering the nature of employment of a Mandal, such inter-district transfer of a Mandal cannot be resorted to in a routine manner. It would be in the nature of an exception to the employment as Mandal. Therefore, such inter-district transfer of Mandal may be considered only in exceptional cases. However, the contention of the petitioners that clause 3A of the Government notification dated 5.9.1985 which forms part of the Assam Land Records Manual cannot be amended or cancelled by way of a subsequent policy cannot be accepted inasmuch as Assam Land Records Manual do not have statutory character being merely executive instructions and, therefore, those can be amended by subsequent executive instructions - see Sapon Borah v. State of Assam, (2011) 6 GLR 468. 31. 31. While it is true that the courts are ordinarily reluctant to interfere with policy decision of the Government but if such policy is found to be arbitrary and violative of article 14, the court can certainly interfere in such policy, more so, when such policy has been framed on orders of the court. 32. In such circumstances, clause 1 of the impugned policy dated 3.5.2012 is set-aside and quashed. Director of Land Records and Surveys, Assam shall now consider the individual prayers of the petitioners keeping in mind the observations made above. 33. All the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. 34. No cost.