JUDGMENT : Case was heard yesterday and today is fixed for delivery of order. 2. Heard Mr. J. C. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. K. Roy Choudhury and Mr. S. U. Ahmed, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. Also heard Mr. B. J. Ghosh, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam, who has produced the relevant record. 3. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of Annexure-13 notification dated 27.02.2015 whereby he has been retransferred and posted at Paschim Kaliabor Development Block in the district of Nagaon from Karunabari Development Block in the district of Lakhimpur. By the said notification, transfer of respondent No. 5 from Karunabari Development Block to Biswanath Development Block in the neighbouring Sonitpur district has been stayed. 4. Facts of the case may be briefly noted. 5. Petitioner was serving as Extension Officer (Credit) under the Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Govt. of Assam. By notification dated 28.07.2014 issued by the Secretary of the Department, petitioner was promoted as Block Development Officer (BDO) and posted at Bokajan Development Block in the district of Karbi Anglong. 6. By notification dated 21.08.2014, posting of the petitioner on promotion at Bokajan Development Block was modified and petitioner was posted at Karunabari Development Block in the district of Lakhimpur. In less than 1 month, notification dated 09.09.2014 was issued whereby the previous notification dated 21.08.2014 was cancelled and petitioner was reposted at Sapekhati Development Block in the district of Sivasagar instead of Karunabari Development Block. By another notification of the same date, respondent No. 5 who was then serving as BDO, Telahi Development Block in the district of Lakhimpur was transferred and posted at Karunabari Development Block in the same district in place of petitioner who was transferred to Sapekhati Development Block. 7. Petitioner’s transfer notification dated 09.09.2014 was subsequently modified by another notification dated 24.10.2014 whereby petitioner was posted at Paschim Kaliabor Development Block, Nagaon instead of Sapekhati Development Block, Sivasagar. After about 2 (two) months, another notification dated 16.12.2014 came to be issued whereby petitioner was transferred from Paschim Kaliabor Development Block and posted back at Karunabari Development Block in place of respondent No. 5 who was transferred and posted at Biswanath Development Block in the neighbouring Sonitpur district. The officer who was posted at Biswanath Development Block was transferred to and posted at Paschim Kaliabor Development Block. 8. The officer who was posted at Biswanath Development Block was transferred to and posted at Paschim Kaliabor Development Block. 8. According to the petitioner, following the order dated 16.12.2014, he had handed over charge at Paschim Kaliabor Development Block and proceeded to take over charge at Karunabari Development Block. In fact he submitted joining letter in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur. 9. At that stage, respondent No. 5 moved this Court by filing WP(C) No. 6859/2014 assailing the transfer order dated 16.12.2014 whereby he was transferred from Karunabari Development Block to Biswanath Development Block. This Court by order dated 19.12.2014 while disposing the writ petition gave liberty to respondent No. 5 to approach the authority who had issued the notification dated 16.12.2014 by filing representation within 10 (ten) days. If the representation was filed within the period specified the authority was directed to consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. This Court further directed that till disposal of such representation, status quo as on 19.12.2014 should be maintained. 10. Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Development Department issued letter dated 21.01.2015 informing respondent No. 5 that following the order of this Court dated 19.12.2014, the matter relating to transfer of respondent No. 5 was reviewed by the Department and on such review it was decided that the previous notification dated 16.12.2014 would remain in force unchanged. 11. Hardly 1 (one) month thereafter the impugned notification dated 27.02.2015 came to be issued by the same Deputy Secretary. By this impugned notification, transfer of respondent No. 5 from Karunabari Development Block to Biswanath Development Block vide the previous notification dated 16.12.2014 was stayed and petitioner was re-transferred and posted at Paschim Kaliabor Development Block. The officer who was transferred to Paschim Kaliabor Development Block was brought back to Biswanath Development Block. 12. Aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed. 13. This Court by order dated 11.03.2015 directed the learned State Counsel to obtain instructions regarding the frequent transfer of the petitioner and further directed maintenance of status quo in respect of the Office of BDO, Karunabari Development Block. 14. Thereafter the case was heard on 27.05.2015 on which date Mr. B. J. Ghosh, learned State Counsel produced the relevant record which has been perused. 15. Respondent No. 1 has filed counter affidavit through Smt. Lily Choudhury, the Deputy Secretary. 14. Thereafter the case was heard on 27.05.2015 on which date Mr. B. J. Ghosh, learned State Counsel produced the relevant record which has been perused. 15. Respondent No. 1 has filed counter affidavit through Smt. Lily Choudhury, the Deputy Secretary. It is stated that by notification dated 16.12.2014, petitioner was transferred from Paschim Kaliabor Development Block to Karunabari Development Block and respondent No. 5 was transferred to Biswanath Development Block. Respondent No. 5 had filed a writ petition challenging his transfer to Biswanath Development Block which was disposed of vide order dated 19.12.2014. As per direction of this Court, representation of respondent No. 5 was duly considered but it was decided that the notification dated 16.12.2014 will remain in force unchanged. This was communicated to respondent No. 5 as well. It is further stated that in the interest of the public service notification dated 27.02.2015 was issued only to stay operation of the earlier notification dated 16.12.2014. It is further stated that the earlier notification dated 16.12.2014 had the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister and the impugned notification has been issued only to stay the earlier notification dated 16.12.2014. 16. Respondent No. 5 has also filed counter affidavit. It is stated that on his promotion, petitioner was posted at Bokajan Development Block but he refused to join there. Petitioner applied pressure on the official respondents through outside source which led to modification of his posting. This in turn started the chain of transfers and postings. It is in public interest that respondent No. 5 has been transferred from Telahi Development Block to Karunabari Development Block. Petitioner did not join at any of the places where he was transferred and ultimately managed re-transfer to Karunabari Development Block. Respondent No. 5’s representation was rejected on 21.01.2015 without application of mind. When the respondent No. 5 filed fresh representation, the impugned order came to be issued after proper application of mind. Contending that there is no merit in the writ petition, respondent No. 5 seeks dismissal of the same. 17. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties are on pleaded lines and therefore a detailed reference to the submissions so made is considered not necessary. However, Mr. Ghosh, learned Govt. Contending that there is no merit in the writ petition, respondent No. 5 seeks dismissal of the same. 17. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties are on pleaded lines and therefore a detailed reference to the submissions so made is considered not necessary. However, Mr. Ghosh, learned Govt. Advocate while handing over the record submits that both petitioner and respondent No. 5 had approached political personalities to further their service interest which led to this unfortunate chain of events. 18. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it would be apposite to make a brief reference to the record of the case. As already noticed above, matter relates to transfer and posting of two BDOs i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 5. In what ought to have been a routine administrative matter has now taken epic proportion so much so that three files had to be opened by the Department to deal with the comparatively small issue of transfer and posting of petitioner and respondent No. 5. In the service hierarchy of the Department, BDO is placed relatively lower down the ladder. Yet the instant transfer and posting has seen the involvement of a large number of high profile personalities upto the level of Chief Minister. The record reveals that at each stage, either the petitioner or the respondent No. 5 had approached political authorities to further their service interest. In the file No. PDB-47/2014/38, which is one of the three files opened, the Minister, Panchayat and Rural Development Department himself put up a note dated 21.08.2014 addressed to the Principal Secretary of the Department to modify the posting of the petitioner from Bokajan Development Block to Karunabari Development Block against existing vacancy. Principal Secretary issued the notification accordingly. 19. After the posting of the petitioner was modified from Bokajan Development Block to Karunabari Development Block, Sri Sanjay Raj Subba, MLA entered into the picture. He submitted a letter dated 25.08.2014 addressed to the Minister, Panchayat and Rural Development Department requesting modification of the transfer of the petitioner from Karunabari Development Block to Dhakuakhana Development Block and to transfer respondent No. 5 from Telahi Development Block in Lakhimpur district to Karunabari Development Block also in Lakhimpur district. On the body of the said letter, the Minister put up a note before the Principal Secretary on the same date asking him to put up the matter urgently. 20. On the body of the said letter, the Minister put up a note before the Principal Secretary on the same date asking him to put up the matter urgently. 20. It appears that because of the aforesaid intervention petitioner was transferred to Sapekhati Development Block. However, before the transfer could materialize, Sri Sarat Barkataki, MLA and Vice Chairman, State Planning Board wrote a letter to the departmental Minister on 29.09.2014 stating that the incumbent BDO at Sapekhati Development Block should be continued and posting of the petitioner at Sapekhati should be cancelled. On the body of this letter also the departmental Minister put up a note to the Principal Secretary on 30.09.2014 in the following terms-“as desired by Hon’ble MLA”. Sri Sarat Barkataki again wrote to the departmental Minister on 15.10.2014 referring to a telephonic talk between them and requested the Minister to cancel the posting of the new BDO i.e. the petitioner at Sapekhati. Here also on the body of the letter the departmental Minister put up a note to the Principal Secretary on 16.10.2014 in the following terms-“as desired by Hon’ble MLA”. 21. In the meanwhile, not to be left behind, Sri Bharat Ch. Narah, Press Advisor to the Chief Minister wrote a letter to the departmental Minister on 07.11.2014 requesting transfer of the petitioner from Paschim Kaliabor Development Block to Karunabari Development Block in place of respondent No. 5. As before, the departmental Minister put up the following note to the Principal Secretary on 08.11.2014-“please put up”. 22. Sri Nurjamal Sarkar, Ex-Minister and President, Sonitpur District Congress Committee also wrote to the departmental Minister to transfer respondent No. 5 to Biswanath Development Block. Though the date of this letter is shown as 20.08.2014, all the other dates appearing in this letter indicate that it was received in the office of the Minister in the month of November, 2011. The departmental Minister requested the Principal Secretary of the Department on 13.11.2014 to “please put up”. 23. Ultimately, Sri Sanjay Raj Subba, MLA wrote to the Chief Minister, Assam on 17.12.2014 requesting cancellation of the transfer of respondent No. 5 to Biswanath Development Block and to post him as BDO in Karunabari Development Block. There is an endorsement of the Chief Minister dated 03.01.2015 requesting the departmental Minister to look into the matter. The departmental Minister in turn requested the Addl. Chief Secretary “to please put up”. There is an endorsement of the Chief Minister dated 03.01.2015 requesting the departmental Minister to look into the matter. The departmental Minister in turn requested the Addl. Chief Secretary “to please put up”. This is followed by another letter dated 05.02.2015 written by Sri Sanjay Raj Subba and addressed to the departmental Minister to cancel the transfer of respondent No. 5 to Biswanath Development Block and to re-post him at Karunabari Development Block. 24. The above sequence of events really makes a disturbing reading. Both petitioner and respondent No. 5 are in-service Government servants. The manner in which they have approached various political authorities for their transfer and posting is really unfortunate. Panchayat and Rural Development Department is primarily meant to look after devolution of power to the grass roots through the panchayats and coordinate efforts for rural development. Instead of doing that, considerable time and energy has been wasted in a small matter relating to posting and re-posting of petitioner and respondent No. 5. In this process not only the departmental Minister got involved but the matter had reached even upto the level of Hon’ble Chief Minister. 25. As already noticed above, against the notification dated 16.12.2014 respondent No. 5 had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 6859/2014 which was disposed of giving liberty to the respondent No. 5 to file representation before the authority which had issued the notification dated 16.12.2014. By letter dated 21.01.2015 issued by the Deputy Secretary of the Department, respondent No. 5 was informed that his representation was rejected and it was stated that notification dated 16.12.2014 would remain in force unchanged. This Court has held in a catena of decisions that once a transfer order is made in the public interest, modification or alteration of such transfer order, would be permissible only if overriding public interest demands. In this case, the notification dated 16.12.2014 was issued in the public interest. Representation of respondent No. 5 for modification of the same was considered and rejected by holding that notification dated 16.12.2014 would remain in force. Thereafter, the Department ought not to have entertained any further representation of respondent No. 5 for staying the previous notification dated 16.12.2014. At this stage, it may also be mentioned that the notification dated 16.12.2014 was not only issued in the public interest, the same had the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. Thereafter, the Department ought not to have entertained any further representation of respondent No. 5 for staying the previous notification dated 16.12.2014. At this stage, it may also be mentioned that the notification dated 16.12.2014 was not only issued in the public interest, the same had the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. A notification issued in the public interest, which had the approval of the Chief Minister and subsequently reiterated by rejecting the representation of respondent No. 5, could not have been stayed by the Deputy Secretary vide the impugned notification. No overriding public interest is discernible to justify issuance of the impugned notification. 26. This Court in a recent decision dated 07.04.2015 in WP(C) No. 6513/2014 (Purnima Hazarika Vs. State of Assam & Ors), which was a case relating to transfer and posting of Child Development Project Officers in the Social Welfare Department, had observed that Government servants approaching politicians or public representatives in connection with their service related grievance is not permissible under the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. Under Rule 22 of the said Rules, no Government servant shall bring or attempt to bring any political or other influence to bear upon any superior authority to further his interest in respect of matters pertaining to his service under the Government. Violation of Rule 22 of the said Rules would amount to misconduct under the Service Rules. In the said case it was held as under:- “12. Ministers and MLAs, or for that matter the Deputy Speaker, being public representatives, can certainly convey the grievance of the public relating to transfer and posting of public servants before the departmental authorities as well as before the Minister-in-charge, which is a part of the democratic polity and no fault can be found in the ventilation of public grievance by the public representatives. But what is disturbing as can be seen from the relevant file is that both the 2 (two) writ petitioners, being Government servants, had bypassed the lawful service hierarchy in the department and had sought interference of the Deputy Speaker, Minister and MLA unconnected with the department to further their service interest. 13. Public approaching the public representatives ventilating their grievance regarding posting of Government servants or for such other matters is one thing and serving Government servants approaching politicians or public representatives in connection with their service related issues is altogether another thing. 14. 13. Public approaching the public representatives ventilating their grievance regarding posting of Government servants or for such other matters is one thing and serving Government servants approaching politicians or public representatives in connection with their service related issues is altogether another thing. 14. In the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, which deals with conduct of Government servants, a Government servant has been defined to mean any person appointed by the Government to any civil service or post in connection with the affairs of the State. Under Rule 22 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, no Government servant shall bring or attempt to bring any political or other influence to bear upon any superior authority to further his interest in respect of matters pertaining to his service under the Government. 15. When one is in Government service he or she has to maintain and respect the hierarchy of the service. The same cannot be bypassed or attempted to be broken by bringing in political or any outside influence. Approaching politicians and using their power and position to influence decision making of the higher authorities will certainly amount to breach of conduct under the aforesaid Rules. 16. This is an aspect which the respondents may consider and issue general notification so that it is made clear to the Government servants that bringing any political or outside influence to influence decision making in the department is not acceptable and would be construed as a breach of conduct and discipline. In this connection, respondents may take up the matter with the Personnel Department or such other Department as may be considered necessary.” 27. As can be seen from the above, this Court had observed that the Social Welfare Department should take up the matter with the Personnel Department or such other Department as may be considered necessary to take necessary steps to stop this malady. It is not known at to what steps have been taken by the Social Welfare Department. Since the matter has again come to the notice of the Court, the Panchayat and Rural Development Department should take up the matter with the Personnel Department to consider issuing general notification to make it clear to the Government servants that bringing any political or outside influence to influence decision making in the Department would be construed as an act of misconduct. 28. 28. Accordingly and in the light of the discussions made above, this Court finds no justification in the impugned notification dated 27.02.2015. The same has neither been issued in any public interest nor for any administrative exigency. The manner in which the said notification has been issued and the sequence of events preceding it reflects malafide exercise of power. Accordingly, impugned notification dated 27.02.2015 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside and quashed. 29. Writ petition is allowed but without any order as to cost. 30. Record produced by Mr. Ghosh, learned Govt. Advocate is returned back.