JUDGMENT : Dr. D.P.Choudhury, J. 1. In this writ petition, challenge has been made to the letter of the District Judge, Deogarh dated 01.11.2016 (Annexure-9) with further prayer to direct the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to join the Judgeship of Sambalpur. 2. FACTS The infiltrated factual matrix leading to the case of the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Stenographer in the undivided judgeship of Sambalpur on 10.04.1995. While continuing as such, as in the year 2010 there was a proposal for creation of new judgeship of Deogarh, learned District Judge, Sambalpur, opposite party no.3 invited options from the Class-III and Class-IV employees of Sambalpur judgeship for being deployed to the newly created Deogarh judgeship and to work in the judgeship of Samblapur. The petitioner gave his option to work in the judgeship of Sambalpur. Without taking into consideration the option given by the petitioner, opposite party no.3 posted the petitioner as Senior Stenographer in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deogarh, but one Sri Jagatram Pradhan, who was working as a Senior Stenographer was allowed to continue in the judgeship of Deogarh as per his option. 3. Be it stated that, as per the G.A. Department Office Memorandum dated 13.12.1996 (Annexure-3), in case of creation of a new judgeship, the posts shall be filled up from the bottom of the cadre in the undivided judgeship by applying the “bottom-up” principle and since one Bijay Kumar Bhumij was junior to the petitioner, he should have been transferred to Deogarh judgeship as a matter of princple. The native place of the petitioner is at Sambalpur and his family members are residing there for which it is convenient for him to work in the judgeship of Sambalpur. On 24.04.2013, the petitioner made a representation to the opposite party no.3 and since the same was not considered, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.12645 of 2013, which was disposed of on 14.09.2016 directing the opposite party no.3 to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 24.04.2013 expeditiously. 4. On 24.04.2013, the petitioner made a representation to the opposite party no.3 and since the same was not considered, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.12645 of 2013, which was disposed of on 14.09.2016 directing the opposite party no.3 to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 24.04.2013 expeditiously. 4. It is stated that after the order was passed in W.P.(C) No.12645 of 2013, the opposite party no.3 allowed the representation of the petitioner for his transfer to Sambalpur judgeship, but the opposite party no.3 also asked the learned District Judge, Deogarh, opposite party no.4 as to whether the petitioner could be spared and vide letter dated 01.11.2016, opposite party no.4 refused to spare the petitioner. Since the order of this Court and the Office Memorandum of G.A. Department vide Annexure-3, as stated above, have not been followed, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition to quash the letter dated 01.11.2016 (Annexure-9) of opposite party no.4 and allow the petitioner to join in the judgeship of Sambalpur. 5. Mr.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working in the judgeship of Sambalpur diligently when option was called for to find out whether the petitioner would be deployed to Deogarh, which is against the “bottom-up” principle. Rule- 13 of the Orissa District and Sub-ordinate Courts’ Non-Judicial Staff Services (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter called “the Rules, 2008”), providing for inter-judgeship transfer, is not applicable in this case, but the opposite parties have construed the same as applicable which is not legal and proper. Since this Court, in the earlier writ petition of the petitioner, has asked the opposite party no.3 to carry out the instructions which was incumbent on the opposite party no.3, while allowing the representation of the petitioner as per the order of this Court, opposite party no.3 should not have asked the opposite party no.4 as to whether the petitioner’s service can be spared or not. He further submitted that after the order of this Court was passed to consider the representation of the petitioner and the same has been duly considered, the order of the opposite party no.4 refusing to spare the petitioner is not only against the order of this Court but also against the instruction of the State Government. He further submitted that after the order of this Court was passed to consider the representation of the petitioner and the same has been duly considered, the order of the opposite party no.4 refusing to spare the petitioner is not only against the order of this Court but also against the instruction of the State Government. So, he contended to quash the letter of opposite party no.4 in Annexure-9 and further allow the petitioner to be redeployed to the judgeship of Sambalpur. 6. Mr.Tripathy, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable and it is the prerogative of the authority to spare his employee because the administration of justice is the paramount consideration for every judicial establishment. He further submitted that there is shortage of stenographers in the judgeship of Deogarh for which the opposite party no.4 has rightly refused to spare the petitioner. According to him, this is an inter-judgeship transfer where the consent of employer is essential, although it is prerogative for all the employees including the officers to exercise the option subject to the approval by the administrative authority. When for the larger public interest, the petitioner has been appointed as stenographer in the judgeship of Deogarh, there is no defect in the impugned order under Annexure-9 to spare the petitioner for going back to Sambalpur Judgeship. As such, the writ petition is misconceived and the same should be dismissed. 7. POINT FOR DETERMINATION The main point for determination is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be deployed/returned to the judgeship of Sambalpur? 8. DISCUSSIONS It is admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Stenographer in the erstwhile undivided judgeship of Sambalpur in 1995 and subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Senior Stenographer. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has exercised his option to be retained in the parent judgeship of Sambalpur, but was transferred to Deogarh. 9. Annexure-1 series show that on 4.2.2013, the petitioner conveyed his willingness to work in the mother judgeship of Sambalpur. Annexure-2 is the extract of the order of opposite party no.3 from which it appears that the name of the petitioner finds places at Serial No.39 whereas the name of one Jagatram Pradhan finds place at Serial No.38. So, it is not in doubt that the petitioner is junior to Sri Jagatram Pradhan. Annexure-2 is the extract of the order of opposite party no.3 from which it appears that the name of the petitioner finds places at Serial No.39 whereas the name of one Jagatram Pradhan finds place at Serial No.38. So, it is not in doubt that the petitioner is junior to Sri Jagatram Pradhan. The Office Memorandum of the General Administration Department dated 13.12.1996 (Annexure-3) stipulates guidelines for redeployment of surplus staff of mother district to the newly created districts on re-organization of the district. On going through the said Office Memorandum, it appears that Clause-2.1 provides action for redeployment of employees borne in the cadres of mother district shall be taken by the respective district cadre controlling authorities of the mother district. It is also clear from the said Office Memorandum that as far as practicable and subject to vacancies in the relevant grades, the assignment of the employees to the cadre of the mother district or the cadres of the newly created districts may be made on the basis of the position in the gradation list of the original district cadre taking into account their preferences. In fact in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no.4, it is clearly admitted that after the willingness of the employees are collected, the principle of “bottom-up” theory, i.e, two stenographers of the composite judgeship were only transferred to the judgeship of Deogarh, which is challenged seriously by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The opposite party no.3 does not deny about placing the petitioner above one B.K.Bhumij. If the “bottom-up” principle is applied, it is for the Bhumij to be retained in Deogarh. However, it is stated by the petitioner that he had made representation which was pending and as it was not disposed of, he filed W.P.(C) No.12645 of 2013, which was disposed of on 14.09.2016 with the following order: “W.P.(C) No.12645 of 2013 05. 14.09.2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the opposite parties to consider the option exercised by the petitioner for transferring and posting him in the judgeship of Sambalpur within a stipulated period. 14.09.2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the opposite parties to consider the option exercised by the petitioner for transferring and posting him in the judgeship of Sambalpur within a stipulated period. It is stated that a representation in this regard has been submitted to the District Judge, Sambalpur-opposite party no.3, dated 24.04.2013, as per Annexure-7 to the writ petition, which according to the petitioner is still pending consideration. Accordingly, a prayer has been made to direct the said opposite party no.3 to consider and dispose of petitioner’s representation expeditiously. Considering the limited nature of grievances and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing the District Judge, Sambalpur-opposite party no.3, to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 24.04.2013 (Annexure-7), if the same is still pending, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Xx xx xx xx” 10. Annexure-8 shows that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, opposite party no.3 has allowed the representation of the petitioner on 28.10.2016 for his transfer from Deogarh judgeship to Sambalpur judgeship. In Annexure-8, opposite party no.3 has sought for the consent of opposite party no.4 whether the service of the petitioner can be spared, even though order of this Court, in previous writ petition did not direct to seek for the consent of opposite party no.4. That apart, this is not a case of inter-judgeship transfer as per Rule-13 of the Rules, 2008, but it is a case of deployment. In the case of inter-judgeship transfer, while one judgeship must be ready to spare an employee subject to the consent of other judgeship to accept him and after the consent of respective District Judges, the Court allows the transfer from one judgeship to another judgeship. In the counter affidavit, opposite party no.3 in one hand denied the applicability of the Office Memorandum of the G.A. Department, but on the other hand, it is stated that the “bottom-up” principle made in Clause-2.6 has been violated. Moreover, the opposite party no.3, in the counter affidavit, denied to accept the request for transfer of the petitioner in view of the fact that opposite party no.4 refused to spare the service of the petitioner. Moreover, the opposite party no.3, in the counter affidavit, denied to accept the request for transfer of the petitioner in view of the fact that opposite party no.4 refused to spare the service of the petitioner. Once the representation of the petitioner has been allowed in pursuance of the order of this Court, the action of the opposite party no.3 seeking opinion of opposite party no.4 for sparing the service of the petitioner is quite in appropriable because the opposite party no.3 was only directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner because of the order of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No.12645 of 2013 either to allow or reject but not for passing any conditional order. 11. Similarly, in the counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no.4, a plea has been taken that due to paucity of staff, the service of the petitioner is not spared and it took up the case as a case of inter- judgeship transfer, which is misconceived. After going through the counter affidavit of opposite party no.3 and opposite party no.4, we are of the view that opposite parties 3 and 4 have neither understood the policy of deployment nor understood the policy of inter-judgeship transfer. In such situation, since the petitioner has made option to be retained in the judgeship of Sambalpur and Sri Bhumij is below him and other employees have been also accommodated in Sambalpur judgeship, the redeployment of petitioner in the judgeship of Deogarh against his option and later on seeking permission of opposite party no.4 to spare his service and refusal by opposite party no.4 are all de hors the principle of deployment. No reason has been assigned in Annexure-2 series as to why the petitioner’s case was not considered in spite of his option. So, we are of the opinion that the petitioner’s representation should have been disposed of in terms of his option without seeking any permission from the judgeship of Deogarh. On the other hand, the transfer of the petitioner to the judgeship of Sambalpur should be made as a policy of deployment and the question of interjudgeship transfer does not arise. The point is answered accordingly. 12. On the other hand, the transfer of the petitioner to the judgeship of Sambalpur should be made as a policy of deployment and the question of interjudgeship transfer does not arise. The point is answered accordingly. 12. CONCLUSION In the writ petition, it has been prayed to quash the letter dated 01.11.2016 vide Annexure-9 and to direct the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to join in the judgeship of Sambalpur in view of the fact that the representation of the petitioner for his transfer to Sambalpur judgehip has been allowed by the opposite party no.3 vide Annexure-8 in pursuance of the order of this Court. 13. In terms of our above discussion, it has already been observed that the opposite party no.3 should not have asked for the opinion of opposite party no.4 regarding sparing the service of the petitioner while he has already allowed the petitioner to join in the judgeship of Sambalpur in pursuance of order passed by this Court in W.P(C) No.12645 of 2013. Also it has been observed hereinabove that the plea of paucity of staff by the opposite party no.4 should not be a ground not to spare the service of the petitioner when he has given option to work in the judgeship of Sambalpur. Moreover, the letter of opposite party no.4 dated 01.11.2016 only shows that since the inception of the judgeship, they are facing a lot of hindrances due to lack of Senior Stenographer for which the service of the petitioner could not be spared. It must be borne in mind that as per the provisions of Rules, 2008, each judgeship has to make recruitment each year and the judgeships are created since 2013, inaction on the part of the opposite party no.4 cannot stand on the way to defeat the policy of deployment as propounded by this Court time and again while new judgeship are being created bereft of the policy of the inter-judgeship transfer. Therefore, the Court hastens to add that the plea of not sparing the petitioner to the judgeship of Sambalpur cannot be said to be in public exigencies. Hence, such letter vide Annexure-9 being de hors the law and principles and policy of deployment, is liable to be quashed and the Court do so. Therefore, the Court hastens to add that the plea of not sparing the petitioner to the judgeship of Sambalpur cannot be said to be in public exigencies. Hence, such letter vide Annexure-9 being de hors the law and principles and policy of deployment, is liable to be quashed and the Court do so. It is hereby directed to implement the order passed in Annexure-8 without seeking for any permission from the opposite party no.4 for sparing the service of the petitioner. On the other hand, the Court direct learned District Judge, Deogarh, opposite party no.4 to relieve the petitioner forthwith and direct him to join in the judgeship of Sambalpur in the same capacity on the next day of his relief and opposite party no.3 would also issue order of posting immediately after joining of the petitioner in the office of District Judge, Sambalpur. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.