The main legal point established is that while the Government's norms require recording justification for premature transfers, such requirement does not apply when the transfer is within the same place or station, and judicial interference in such cases would not be justified.

Hrishikesh Roy, J.

1. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 8.5.08 allowing the Writ Petition No. 1559/08, the State has filed Writ Appeal No. 137/08 and Shri Khagendra Deka, respondent No. 5 in the writ petition, has filed the Writ Appeal No. 136/08. The Writ Petition was filed by Ranjit Chandra Barman, arrayed in the Writ Appeals as a respondent, to challenge the transfer order dated 7.3.08 by which the writ petitioner, who was working as the Executive Engineer, Guwahati West Water Resources Dvn. has been transferred and posted as the Deputy Director, Planning in the Office of the Director, Planning Water Resources Deptt. and the appellant Khagendra Deka, holding the post of Deputy Director has been posted as the Executive Engineer of the Guwahati West Dvn. It is not in dispute that by the said transfer order dated 7.3.08 neither the writ petitioner nor the appellant were being posted out of Guwahati and the transfer order results in shifting the incumbents from one office to another, in the same city under the same department.

2. The writ petitioner challenged his transfer primarily on the ground that as his transfer was effected before completion of the normal tenure of three years in the post of Executive Engineer, Gauhati West Water Resources Dvn., the said transfer could only have been ordered by the Govt. by following the norms prescribed by the Govt. itself through O.M. dated 4.2.02 and 4.10.06 (Annexure-4 and 5) for making a transfer prior to completion of the normal tenure of three years. There is no disagreement at the Bar that the norms prescribed by the Govt. require that proper justifications are to be recorded for effecting a transfer before completion of a normal tenure of three years at one place by an employee and such transfer can be effected only with prior approval of the Chief Minister.

3. The learned Single Judge having considered the norms set up by the Govt. which have been noted to be in force to check arbitrary exercise of power, found on examination of the concerned records that although prior approval of the Chief Minister was taken for transferring the writ petitioner before completion of his normal tenure of three years, no justification was, however, recorded for effecting the said transfer. The learned Single Judge found the need for observance of the norms of recording appropriate justification, as long as the concerned office memorandums are in force. Accordingly, it was held that even in the circumscribed jurisdiction of the Court in matters relating to transfer, the Courts must ensure that norms set up by the Govt. are followed as the norms are prescribed to check arbitrary transfers. As in the instant case reasons were not recorded before the impugned transfer order dated 7.3.08 was issued, the writ petition was allowed by setting aside the transfer order issued to the petitioner.

4. Appearing for the appellant State, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, the learned Addl. Advocate General and Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for appellant Khagendra Deka in W.A. No. 136/08 submit that this was not a case of transfer of the writ petitioner from Guwahati to any post outside of the Guwahati and it was a transfer within the same station but to another post. Accordingly, it is argued that since the Govt. Memorandums have been notified to prevent arbitrary exercise of power of only premature transfer before the incumbent has spent less than three years in one station, the departure from the prescribed norms of recording of justification, for effecting such premature transfer can't be held to be fatal. Accordingly, submissions have been made to sustain the order of transfer by interfering with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

5. Mr. P. Pathak, learned senior counsel representing the respondent/writ petitioner, on the other hand, argues that when the Govt. has notified norms to be followed by the Govt. in matters of premature transfer, the Court would be perfectly ju