IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of fulfilling the twin pre-requirements of public interest and administrative exigencies for transfers, and highlighted the significance of adhering to the Transfer Policy.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record, the Dasti notices, whereby, respondent No.4 (Goldy Bhardwaj) stands served. None has put in appearance on his behalf and therefore, he is proceeded against ex-parte.

2. The case of the petitioner, is that, the petitioner is Panchayat Secretary. He has assailed order dated 2nd August, 2023, transferring the petitioner from Gram Panchayat Kapahra to Gram Panchayat Sandyar, Development Block Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, against a vacant post. The petitioner has stated that the transfer order is in violation of Clause 3.21 of the Transfer Policy, which provides that the Panchayat Secretaries/Gram Panchayat Avam Vikas Adhikaries/Panchayat Sahak, will not be posted in their Home Panchayat and adjoining Panchayats. As per learned counsel for the petitioner the transferred station i.e. Gram Panchayat Sandyar is adjoining Panchayat of the petitioner and that being so, the impugned transfer on the face of it, is contrary to Transfer Police.

3. Learned State Counsel has furnished the Instructions dated 26.12.2023 [taken on record], whereby, the State Authorities, have only relied upon the previous incumbency of the petitioner by stating that he remained posted in and around Bilaspur for more than 17 years; and the transfer was ordered on approval of the competent authority.

4. On considering the stand so taken by State Authorities, in the Instructions dated 26.12.2023, this Court is of the considered view that there is neither any whisper nor any discussion, with respect, to the transfer of the petitioner being dehors the mandate of Clause 3.21 of the Transfer Policy, which reads as under:

Clause 3.21 of the Transfer Policy:

5. Reference to Clause 3.21 of the Transfer Policy restricts the posting of a Panchayat Secretary-petitioner in his Home Panchayat and Adjoining Panchayats and despite the orders passed by this Court, on 15.12.2023, no explanation has given by respondents for resorting to the transfer of petitioner dehors Clause 3.21 and therefore, the impugned transfer order dated 02.08.2023, (Annexure P-1), cannot be permitted to operate. In addition to this, the previous incumbency of the petitioner cannot be taken as a defence by the State Authorities, for the reason, that once the State Authorities on representations made by the petitioner or otherwise had permitted the petitioner to continue at one place or nearby places, in one district, then, respondents are estopped to take such a defence, to the disadvantage/prejudice of the petitioner, is untenable on facts as well as in law.

6. Moreover, even if, the transfer was ordered on the approval of the competent authority (Hon’ble Chief Minsiter), then also, such a direction can be ipso-facto acted upon unless it is founded on genuine, cogent and convincing material revealing public interest and administrative exigencies. The instructions furnished by State do not spell out the fulfillment of twin requirements of public interest and administrative exigencies. Things will not stop here. Even in case, an approval or a direction was received, from the competent authority; then also the Administrative Transferring Authority was bound to examine the matter independently and impartially as to whether the twin pre-conditions were fulfilled and whether the exigencies necessitated the transfer of the petitioner. These material aspects are absent/missing and therefore, the only inference is that the transfer is only to give effect the approval-dictates of the higher-ups, by succumbing to such dictates and by abdicating its power, authority and discretion. Even, the Instructions, so furnished by the State Counsel do not reveal any genuine, cogent and convincing material revealing public interest and administrative exigencies.

7. In view of the above discussion,