JUDGMENT : D.P. CHOUDHURY, J. 1. Since these two writ petitions have got common question of law involved, the same are being taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Challenge has been made to the order passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack, opposite party no.2 by posting the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.680 and 681 of 2014 as Sheristadar in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kujanga and Sheristadar in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur respectively illegally and the inaction of the opposite party no.2 in not restoring the petitioners at Cuttack. 3. The unfolded story of the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.680 of 2014 is that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk on 01.03.1989 in the undivided district of Cuttack whereas the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.681 of 2014 has been appointed as Junior Clerk on 19.08.1997 in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh in the undivided judgeship of Cuttack. In 2012, when there was creation of Jagatsinghpur, Kendrapada and Jajpur judgeship, options were called for from the employees of mother judgeship of Cuttack. Although the petitioners gave their respective options to be retained in Cuttack. 4. Be it stated that while the options were sought for on carvation of judgeships, i.e., Kendrapada, Jagatsinghpur on 17.05.2013 from the judgeship of Cuttack, the option of the petitioners were not considered. On the other hand, after creation of separate judgeships on 24.06.2013, learned District Judge, Cuttack promoted the petitioners to the cadre of Bench Clerk Grade-II and posted them as Sheristadar in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Kujanga and Jagatsinghpur respectively, which are within Jagatsinghpur Judgeship. They made representation for their retention in the judgeship of Cuttack but the same was not considered. Since the action of the learned District Judge, Cuttack was arbitrary and without jurisdiction, the writ petitions are filed to declare their posting as Sheristadar in their respective places as illegal with a further prayer to restore them in the judgeship of Cuttack against available vacancies. 5. SUBMISSIONS Mr.Kanungo, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions submitted that the bottom-up principle as circulated by the General Administration Department in 1996 has not be adhered to while the judgeships were separated. 5. SUBMISSIONS Mr.Kanungo, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions submitted that the bottom-up principle as circulated by the General Administration Department in 1996 has not be adhered to while the judgeships were separated. According to him, as per the bottom-up principle, the senior most employees, who have given the first preference in order to remain in the mother district, have to be allotted the mother district and after first bifurcation, the second subsequent preference should be acted upon. Since the petitioners are the senior persons, their option ought to have been taken into consideration to retain them in the mother district of Cuttack. 6. Mr.Kanungo, learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that after separation of the judgeships of Kendrapada, Jagatsinghpur and Jajpur, learned District Judge, Cuttack, opposite party no.2 has no administrative control to promote the petitioners to the cadre of Bench Clerk Grade-II and post them to their respective places outside the divided Cuttack Judgehship. So, he submitted that neither the bottom-up principle was followed nor the opposite party no.2 exercised jurisdiction legally. Hence, he challenged the action of the opposite party no.2 in posting the petitioners at their respective places at Jagatsinghpur and further prayed to direct for their posting according to their exercised option. 7. Mr.Amit Kumar Pattanaik, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the bottom-up principle has been followed as far as practicable because the guiding factor of the said principle is that the authorities would consider the vacancies in the relevant grades of the assignment of the employees to the cadre of mother district and also as far as practicable, the options of employees would be taken into consideration. Further, he submitted that on 17.05.2013, meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (in short “DPC”) was held and the DPC has cleared the names of these petitioners to be promoted to the post of Bench Clerk Grade-II although the order of promotion was issued on 24.06.2013. Since on the date of separation, they were promoted to the cadre of Bench Clerk Grade-II, the promotion and posting cannot be said as illegal. Moreover, he submitted that even if on 17.05.2013, the districts were separated but due to time taken for completion of process of deployment, the order of promotion and posting were issued. Since on the date of separation, they were promoted to the cadre of Bench Clerk Grade-II, the promotion and posting cannot be said as illegal. Moreover, he submitted that even if on 17.05.2013, the districts were separated but due to time taken for completion of process of deployment, the order of promotion and posting were issued. Therefore, there is no illegality in promoting and posting the petitioners, so also, there is no illegality in rejecting the option of the petitioners to be retained in the mother district of Cuttack. 8. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION The main point for consideration is as to whether the posting of the petitioners at Kujanga and Jagatsinghpur is liable to be quashed and they are liable to be restored in the judgeship of Cuttack? 9. DISCUSSIONS It is admitted fact that both the petitioners were initially appointed in the undivided judgeship of Cuttack before the new judgeships Kendrapada, Jagatsinghpur and Jajpur were created. It is not in dispute that on 17.05.2013, the district separation was effected where Jagatsinghpur judgeship was created. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were promoted to the cadre of Bench Clerk Grade-II and posted as Sheristadar in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Kujanga and Jagatsinghpur by virtue of the order dated 24.06.2013 passed by the learned District Judge, Cuttack, opposite party no.2. 10. It is also admitted fact that both the petitioners before bifurcation of the judgeship were asked to give their options and they have been given their options to be retained in the judgeship of Cuttack. Learned counsel for the petitioners took the plea that the bottom-up principle as envisaged as per the circular of 1996 of the General Administration Department has not been adhered to while their options were considered. On the other hand, Mr.Pattanaik, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that such guidelines of General Administration Department vide Office Memorandum No.31775/SC/6-73/96/Gen dated 13.12.1996 was followed by distributing the staff between the mother judgeship and the bifurcated judgeship and there is no discrimination with the petitioners for their deployment in the newly created judgeship of Jagatsinghpur. 11. On the other hand, Mr.Pattanaik, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that such guidelines of General Administration Department vide Office Memorandum No.31775/SC/6-73/96/Gen dated 13.12.1996 was followed by distributing the staff between the mother judgeship and the bifurcated judgeship and there is no discrimination with the petitioners for their deployment in the newly created judgeship of Jagatsinghpur. 11. For the benefit of the parties, relevant portion of the Office Memorandum No.31775/SC/6-73/96/Gen dated 13.12.1996 issued by the General Administration Department, which is very much admitted by both the parties to have been pressed into service to decide the issue in question is reproduced below: “No.31775-SC/6-73/96-Gen. GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OFFICE MEMORANDUM The 13th December, 1996 Subject-Guidelines for re-deployment of surplus staff of mother district to the newly created districts on re-organization. The re-organization of the districts in the State has inevitable rendered a lot of staff surplus in the mother districts, not only in the Collectorate but also in the various district offices. It has been decided by the Government that different categories of posts created in the new districts on reorganization shall be filled up by deployment of the staff rendered surplus in the mother districts. In order to regulate the deployment of surplus staff, the Revenue and Excise Department in their letter No.42820, dated 21st September, 1993 read with letter No.39900, dated the 5th September, 1994 have issued the guidelines and action accordingly has already been taken by the concerned authorities in most of the districts. The guidelines by Revenue and Excise Department may have no binding effect on all the district offices of various Departments. Xxxx xx xx 2.4. As far as practicable and subject to the vacancies available 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. To illustrate, if there are 15 vacancies in a cadre in a district and 30 employees have given their first preference for the district, the senior-most 15 employees of the 30 will be allotted to the district. Having exhausted the first preference, the second and subsequent preferences may be acted upon in that order. Xxxx xx xx 2.6. To illustrate, if there are 15 vacancies in a cadre in a district and 30 employees have given their first preference for the district, the senior-most 15 employees of the 30 will be allotted to the district. Having exhausted the first preference, the second and subsequent preferences may be acted upon in that order. Xxxx xx xx 2.6. If all the vacant posts in a cadre of the districts, carved out of the mother district, cannot be filled upon on the basis of the preferences as above, the posts shall be filled up by the following the “bottom up” principles subject to the following exceptions:- (i) The widow or any other female member of the family of a deceased or disabled Government Servant who has been appointed under the rehabilitation assistance scheme may be allowed to continue in the mother district unless she pre prefers to be assigned to some other district carved out of the mother district. (ii) An employee who had come on transfer to the cadre of the mother district from another district by forgoing his/her seniority in pursuance of General Administration Notification No.28949, dated the 15th July, 1992 and Resolution No.18380, dated 26th August 1993 may be allowed to continue in the cadre of mother district unless he/she prefers to be assigned to some other district carved out of the mother district. (iii) The employees, whose son/daughter is/are already enrolled in a school for blind, deaf, dumb or mentally retarded, may be allowed to continue in the cadre of mother district, if similar instructions are not available in the other newly created districts. The proof of admission and continuance of studies of their children in such institutions shall be produced by the employees for the satisfaction of the cadre controlling authority. Xxxx xx xx” From the aforesaid Office Memorandum issued by the General Administration Department for re-deployment of the surplus staff of mother district to the newly created districts on re-organization of the district have been issued on 13.12.1996 by superseding the earlier circular issued in 1994. Clause 2.4 of the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 13.12.1996 has been well echoed by the petitioners. Such clause has got also exception in certain cases as enumerated in Clause 2.6. Clause 2.4 of the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 13.12.1996 has been well echoed by the petitioners. Such clause has got also exception in certain cases as enumerated in Clause 2.6. However, clause 2.4 states that as far as practicable and subject to the vacancies available in the relevant grades, the assignment of the employees to the cadre of the mother district or the cadres of the newly created districts is crucial clause because the employer has to keep it in mind the vacancies available on different dates and the authority would consider the option to be retained the employees in the mother district as far as possible. The aforesaid Office Memorandum does not disclose that the option of the parties must be carried out in all cases. On the other hand, the authority has got right to consider the representations showing option given by the petitioners. 12. The Additional counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party no.2. Paragraph-4 of the said additional affidavit is placed below for better reference: “4.That in reply to the averments made in Paragraph-2 of rejoinder, it is humbly submitted that keeping in view the opening of new Judgeship the process of promotion was already started to fill up the estimated vacancies in different promotional posts of the undivided Judgeship including that of the District Judge, Jagatsinghpur and the Court of CJ (SD), Kujang prior to the date of separation of the Judgeship. As per resolution of the District Promotion Committee dated 17.05.2013, only 15 employees have been recommended to the promoted to the post of Bench Clerk Grade-II out of the total estimated vacancy of 20. A Xerox copy of the resolution of the District Promotion Committee dated 17.05.2013 is annexed herewith as Annexure-A/2. The deponent further humbly submits that there were 41 posts of Bench Clerk Grade-II for the un-divided judgeship at the time of separation of judgeship, out of which 28 posts were for Cuttack Judgeship and 13 posts for Jagatsinghpur Judgeship but only 36 employees in the said posts were available at the time of deployment of staff. The remaining 5 vacancy as to the total sanctioned strength was approximately 12.195% the proportionate vacancy as to 13 posts has been kept vacant and 11 employees in the said post were deployed there. The remaining 5 vacancy as to the total sanctioned strength was approximately 12.195% the proportionate vacancy as to 13 posts has been kept vacant and 11 employees in the said post were deployed there. In the above premises, even if all the vacancies would have been filled up, the petitioner must have come under the “bottom up” principle. It may further be submitted that since promotion was taken up as per resolution of the Promotion Committee dated 17.05.2013, which was effected vide order No.110 dated 24.06.2013, there was no scope to consider the vacancies occurred after 17.05.2013.” In the aforesaid paragraph of the additional counter affidavit of the opposite party no.2, it is candidly admitted by the said opposite party that the bottom-up principle has not been followed and although there were 13 posts of Bench Clerk Grade-II in the judgeship of Jagatsinghpur made available and Annexure-C/2 clearly shows that this Court has sent letter on 14.05.2013 to the learned District Judge, Cuttack for opening of separate judgeship at Jagatsinghpur on 17.05.2013. Learned District Judge, Cuttack, opposite party no.2 took up DPC on 17.05.2013 and gave promotion to the petitioners. When the opposite party no.2 came to know that separate judgeship at Jagatsinghpur is going to be opened on 17.05.2013, he ought not to have hurriedly held the DPC on the very same day, i.e., on 17.05.2013 and gave promotion to the petitioners to the cadre of Bench Clerk Grade-II and posted them against their option in the judgeship of Jagatsinghpur. It is also admitted in the additional counter affidavit that even if the separation of judgeship was ordered by the Court, it took some time to complete the process. There is no doubt over the submissions because even after bifurcation of the judgeship, the process of separation takes time to take a shape. But in the instant case, holding of DPC on the very same day of separation of judgeship and after promotion to the concerned employees again issuing the order on 24.06.2013, which is much after the separation of the judgeship do not appear to be legal and proper. 13. Besides, Annexure-D/2, which is the deployment order after separation shows that these petitioners, after being promoted, have been placed as Sheristadar in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Kujanga and Jagatsinghpur respectively. 13. Besides, Annexure-D/2, which is the deployment order after separation shows that these petitioners, after being promoted, have been placed as Sheristadar in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Kujanga and Jagatsinghpur respectively. But there is nothing found from the order as to why their options are not considered. On the other hand, from the same order, it appears that Smt. Harapriya Behera, Sridhar Sarangi and Pratap Kumar Barik, who are at serial nos.10, 11 and 12 of said Annexure-D/2, have been retained in the judgeship of Cuttack as per their option. It must be remembered that every administrative order must be preceded with reasons. When there is no reason for the deployment of the petitioners in the newly created judgeship of Jagatsinghpur against their option, the reasons should have been maintained by the learned District Judge, Cuttack, opposite party no.2. Either the opposite party no.2 has not applied his mind to the fact of the case or the options have been conveniently ignored. It is true that for administrative ground, transfer can be made but when there is already provision for option to be exercised, rejection of the same must be supported with reasons. 14. In terms of the above discussion, we are of the view that the deployment of the petitioners in the judgeship of Jagatsinghpur is liable to be quashed. Non-consideration of the options of the petitioners and consideration of some options exercised by some other employees would amount to violation of the principle of natural justice. The point is answered accordingly. 15. CONCLUSION It has been prayed in both the writ petitions to declare the deployment and posting of the petitioners in the judgeship of Jagatsinghpur as Sheristadars as illegal and arbitrary and it has been further prayed to restore them in the judgeship of Cuttack as per their option. 16. In the writ petitions, the petitioners have stated that they have been promoted but deployment with posting in the judgeship of Jagatsinghpur was against their option. They have not challenged their promotion. So, the question of their promotion on 17.05.2013 when the judgeship was separated cannot be set aside. Hence, we are of the view that the order and posting as per order dated 24.06.2013 is liable to be quashed to such extent and the Court do so. They have not challenged their promotion. So, the question of their promotion on 17.05.2013 when the judgeship was separated cannot be set aside. Hence, we are of the view that the order and posting as per order dated 24.06.2013 is liable to be quashed to such extent and the Court do so. In the result, we hereby direct the learned District Judge, Cuttack, opposite party no.2 to pass necessary order of posting of the petitioners in the present judgeship of Cuttack within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order in accordance with law. It is made clear that learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur shall relieve the petitioners immediately after receipt of orders from opposite party no.2. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. Requisites for communication of this order shall be filed within a week. B.K.NAYAK, J. : I agree.