Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 949 (GAU)

ZOTHANSANGA v. STATE OF MIZORAM

2016-10-25

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Michael Zothankhuma, J. Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, senior counsel assisted by Ms. Emily L. Chhangte, counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Melody L. Pachuau, Government Advocate for all the respondents. 2. The petitioner by way of this writ petition has made a challenge to his transfer, by way of the Notification dated 20.7.2015, issued by the Chairman, Inter Departmental Working Group (Atma), herein after referred to as IDWG. The petitioner by way of the impugned Notification dated 20.7.2015 has been transferred from Mameti, Aizawl to Atma, Lawngtlai. The petitioners' counsel submits that in pursuance to an employment notice dated 4.5.2011, calling for filing up the vacant posts of Accountant-cum-clerk in Mameti (State Headquarters) and in the 8 Atmas, in the 8 Districts of Mizoram, the petitioner applied for the post of Accountant-cum-clerk in Mameti (State Headquarters). The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner was thereafter appointed against the vacant post of Accountant-cum-clerk in Mameti (State Headquarters), Aizawl while others were appointed as Accountant-cum-clerk in the other 8 Atmas. 3. The petitioners' counsel submits that the petitioner by way of the impugned Notification dated 20.7.2015 is being transferred to Atma, Lawngtlai, which is not admissible as per the guidelines laid down by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India and as per the Memorandum of Association, Rules and Regulations, Mameti. 4. The petitioners' counsel submits that the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India had made a Centrally Sponsored Scheme in support to State Extension Programmes for Extension Reforms (Atma) Scheme, 2010. As per the scheme, the skill levels of the farming community were to be improved. Sameti is the State Level Institution catering to the training and HRD needs of extension financial needs. Agriculture Technologies Management Agencies (Atma), on the other hand were responsible in Co-ordination and Management of the Agriculture extension related work in the District. 5. The Sameti and the Atma were all to be registered as societies separately. The Organization structure of the scheme was to the effect that Sameti and the Atma were all a part of the Centralized Sponsored Scheme but with Sameti being a State Institution and Atma being an Institution in the District Level. 5. The Sameti and the Atma were all to be registered as societies separately. The Organization structure of the scheme was to the effect that Sameti and the Atma were all a part of the Centralized Sponsored Scheme but with Sameti being a State Institution and Atma being an Institution in the District Level. The petitioners' counsel submits that Atma has to be an autonomous institution as can be seen from the letter dated 14.3.2006 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Corporation, wherein he has requested to the Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Agriculture Department to take necessary action for registration of all Atmas at the earliest. The petitioners' counsel submits that the petitioner having been appointed to the vacant post of Accountant-cum-clerk in the Mameti, Aizawl, the petitioner could not be transferred to a District under Atma as the Chairman of the Idwg did not have the power to affect his transfer, as even the Executive Council of Mameti did not have the power to transfer the petitioner under the Mameti Memorandum of Association, Rules and Regulations. The petitioners' counsel also submits that even the Executive Council of Mameti cannot transfer the petitioner to Atma, in view of the fact that, the petitioner has been appointed as Accountant-cum-clerk in Mameti and not to a vacant post against Atma. The petitioners' counsel submits that Sameti in Mizoram is known as Mameti. He also submits that none of the Atmas in the Districts of Mizoram are registered till date. The petitioners' counsel also submits that the petitioner had earlier challenged the impugned transfer Notification vide W.P.(C) No. 106/2015 and the same was disposed of by this Court, with a direction to the petitioner to submit a representation with regard to his transfer dated 20.7.2015 before the Chairman, Idwg. This Court had also vide its Order dated 23.7.2015 directed the Chairman IDWG to dispose of the petitioners' representation by giving him an opportunity of hearing. 6. The petitioners' counsel submits that in compliance with the Order dated 23.7.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No. 106/2015, the petitioner submitted a representation and was heard by the Chairman, IDWG. The petitioner's representation was thereafter rejected by Order dated 3.8.2015, passed by the Chairman, IDWG. 6. The petitioners' counsel submits that in compliance with the Order dated 23.7.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No. 106/2015, the petitioner submitted a representation and was heard by the Chairman, IDWG. The petitioner's representation was thereafter rejected by Order dated 3.8.2015, passed by the Chairman, IDWG. The petitioners' counsel submits that the reasons given by the respondent No. 2 in rejecting the petitioners' representation vide Order dated 3.8.2015 is arbitrary and the same needs to be set aside along with impugned Transfer Notification dated 20.7.2015. 7. Ms. Melody L. Pachuau, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents submits that the petitioner was not appointed against the vacant post of Accountant-cum-clerk, Mameti specifically. The Govt. Advocate submits that the petitioner was appointed to the vacant post of Accountant-cum-clerk, but not to a particular vacant post or to a particular place. 8. The learned Govt. Advocate submits that the employment notice, in pursuance to which the petitioner had applied for the post, merely indicates the place where the Accountant-cum-clerks, who were proposed to be recruited, would be posted. She submits that the employment notice does not provide for any applicant to apply for a specific place of posting. She also submits that 9 out of 46 candidates had been recommended for appointment as Accountant-cum-clerk and there was no recommendation made for their place of posting by the Selection Board. 9. The learned Govt. Advocate submits that the petitioner being placed at serial No. 1 in the merit list by the Selection Board, they had posted him at Mameti, Aizawl, and not because he had applied for the said post of Mameti, Aizawl. The learned Govt. Advocate also submits that all Accountant-cum-clerks including the petitioner having completed 4 years of service in their respective place of posting were required to be transferred in the interest of smooth and efficient functioning of the Department, irrespective of whether they handled cash or not. The learned Govt. Advocate thus submits that the transfer of Accountant-cum-clerks by way of the impugned Notification was done for all Accountant and Clerks and the petitioner was not singled out. She also submits that the transfer has been made in public interest not due to any other reason. 10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 11. The learned Govt. Advocate thus submits that the transfer of Accountant-cum-clerks by way of the impugned Notification was done for all Accountant and Clerks and the petitioner was not singled out. She also submits that the transfer has been made in public interest not due to any other reason. 10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 11. The question of whether the Chairman, IDWG can transfer the petitioner has been settled by the Order dated 23.07.2015 passed by this Court in W.P (C) No. 106 of 2015. This Court in the Order dated 22.07.2015 had directed the petitioner to submit a representation stating his grievance with regard to the said transfer before the Chairman, IDWG. This Court had also directed the Chairman, IDWG to dispose of the petitioner's representation by giving him an opportunity of hearing. The representation was thereafter disposed off by way of a speaking order dated 03.08.2015. In the representation dated 24.07.2015 submitted by the petitioner in pursuance to this Court's Order dated 23.07.2015, I find that the petitioner has not taken the ground that the Chairman, IDWG did not have the authority to issue a transfer order against the petitioner. The petitioner not having raised this issue in his representation dated 24.07.2015, this Court will not exercise it discretion to delve into the issue of whether the Chairman, IDWG could issue the transfer order. 12. The question of whether the Chairman, IDWG could issue the transfer order is also not being considered due to the fact that the appointment of the petitioner and other accountants-cum-clerks have been made by the Chairman, IDWG, while the appointment of accountant-cum-clerks in Mameti has to be done by the Executive Council, as per the Memorandum of Association, Rule and Regulations of Mameti. 13. The other issue is whether the petitioner could be transferred from Mameti to Atma, Lawngtlai. 14. A perusal of the guidelines for support to State Extension Programmes for Extension Reforms (ATMA) Scheme, 2010 shows that Mameti has to be a registered body and the ATMAs in the district level are also to be registered bodies and an autonomous institution. It is not disputed at the bar that none of the ATMAs in Mizoram have been registered till date as a society. 15. The Govt. Advocate has also produced a number of communications made between the Govt. of Mizoram and the Govt. It is not disputed at the bar that none of the ATMAs in Mizoram have been registered till date as a society. 15. The Govt. Advocate has also produced a number of communications made between the Govt. of Mizoram and the Govt. of Meghalaya, Sikkim, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Nagaland, Assam and Manipur, which shows that employees from one Atma District have been transferred to another Atma district and transfer from Sameti to Atma has also been made in the above States. A perusal of the Notification dated 26.8.2011 issued by the respondent No. 2, wherein the petitioner and 9 others have been appointed as Accountant-cum-clerks indicates that the petitioner has been appointed under the Atma Scheme and posted at Mameti. There is nothing in the guidelines made by the Central Government that Accountant-cum-clerks working in the Mameti, Aizawl cannot be transferred to Atma of other districts. There is also nothing to show that the transfer of the petitioner has been made for reasons other than in public interest. 16. As the Atma in the various districts of Mizoram are not registered and accordingly not an autonomous institution, this Court does not find any illegality in the transfer of the petitioner to Atma, Lawngtlai as Mameti and Atma are all a part of the same Centrally Sponsored Scheme. The organizational chart given in the guidelines shows that Mameti and Atma are all part of the same organization/scheme. There is no transfer policy made out in the guidelines which debars Accountant-cum-clerks being transferred from Sameti to Atma or from one Atma to another Atma. 17. It is settled law that transfer is an incident of service In Pramath Ch. Sarma v. State of Assam and Ors. reported in 2007 (1) GLT 212, the Division Bench of this Court has held that transfer can be interfered by the Court only if the transfer order has not been issued in public interest or administrative exigencies. In the case of Union of India v. Janardhandebnath reported in 2004 (4) SCC 245 , the Apex Court has held that unless transfer involves any adverse impact or visits a person concerned with penal consequences, the same should not be subjected to the same type of scrutiny and assessment as in the case of dismissal. 18. A perusal of the transfer order shows that there has been a whole scale transfer of Accountant-cum-clerks. 18. A perusal of the transfer order shows that there has been a whole scale transfer of Accountant-cum-clerks. There is also no allegation of mala fide made out by the petitioner. The petitioner has also not taken the stand that the transfer is not in public interest or for administrative exigencies. The petitioner having been appointed by the respondent No. 2 along with the other Accountant-cum-clerks, this Court does not find any infirmity with the respondent No. 2 issuing the transfer order to the petitioner and the other Accountant-cum-clerks from Mameti to Atma and from one Atma to another. 19. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned Notification dated 20.7.2015. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.