The impugned transfer order must be supported by valid reasons and cannot be made without valid reasons. The absence of a denial affidavit by the person against whom allegations are made may lead to the acceptance of the allegations.

A.P. Subba, J.

1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or certiorari for quashing Notification No. PW/Admn-32/2000/47 (B) issued under Memo No. PW/Admn-32/2000/47 (AA) dated 12.07.2007, whereby he has been transferred from his present place of posting to another station before completion of his tenure in violation of the professed policy of transfer and posting.

2. Having regard to the urgency involved in the matter and as agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. Accordingly, Mr. M. Chanda, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. E.C. Suja, the learned Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. T.T. Diengdoh, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 were heard at length.

3. The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that he was promoted and posted as Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads) NH Shillong Bye Pass Division, Shillong, in May 2005 from the post of Sub-Divisional Officer PWD (Roads) which he was then holding. Having joined the post of Executive Engineer to which he was promoted he had barely completed 2 (two) years tenure when he was transferred and posted as Assistant Chief Engineer, Office of the Assistant Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) Western Zone, Tura purportedly in public interest. However shortly thereafter the petitioner was again transferred to Central Roads Branch, PWD (Roads) Shillong in suppression of the earlier order. Being aggrieved by this second order of transfer the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition seeking quashing of the order in question.

4. The main grounds which the petitioner has taken in the writ petition are that even though there are no statutory rules governing the transfer and posting of employees, under the term of various notifications and instructions issued by the Govt. from time to time, a fixed term of three years has been prescribed before completion of which no Govt. employee would be transferred in normal course. This practice has over the years been a professed policy of the Govt. in the matter of transfer of a Govt. employee. In view of such professed policy the petitioner would be entitled to continue in his present place of posting i.e. as Executive Engineer PWD (Roads), NH Shillong Bye Pass Division, Shillong at least till May, 2008.

5. Since the posting order in question has been issued in total disregard and in violation of the above professed policy of transfer being followed by the Govt. the further case of the petitioner is that the impugned order is not based on any consideration of public interest or any administrative exigency. The order, according to the petitioner, is based on extraneous considerations the main purpose being to accommodate the respondent No. 4 who is the blue eyed boy of the respondents in place of the petitioner. Therefore, the order being mala fide and arbitrary was liable to be quashed.

6. While the respondent No. 2 did not contest the petition a joint affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 was filed denying the contention of the petitioners. Even though it was not disputed that under the different administrative instructions issued by the Govt. the policy evolved was that an employee should not be transferred before completing a period of three years in one place of posting, it was contended that such policy was not inflexible. It was within the power of the Govt. to deviate from such policy in cases of exigency of service. It was further contended that the notifications issued in this regard were mere administrative instructions which had no statutory force and as such deviation, even if any, does not give any cause of action to file a writ. In other words, the contention was that the guidelines/instructions in question lack any statutory force and cannot be enforced by filing a writ under Article 226 of the Co