The engagement and transfer of Gram Rozgar Sevaks are governed by the provisions of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, and the authority of the Collector to issue transfer orders is established under Section 18 and the Operational Guidelines.

JUDGMENT

Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. - The common question that arises in the three writ appeals which challenge a common order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the corresponding writ petitions of the Appellants is whether a Collector of a District is empowered to transfer a Gram Rozgar Sevak (GRS) engaged as such under Section 18 of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (MGNREG Act) read with the MGNREGA's Operational Guidelines, 2013? The same question arises for consideration in the three connected writ petitions.

2. It must be mentioned at the outset that the impugned transfer order issued by the Collector, Kalahandi as far as writ appeals filed by Gagan Bihari Patra (in W.A. No.401 of 2017) and Amir Harijan (in W.A. No.402 of 2017), is dated 14th September, 2017. While by the said order, Gagan Bihari Patra was transferred from Champadeipur Gram Panchayat (GP) in the Lanjigarh Block to Talnagi GP in Th. Rampur Block, Amir Harijan was transferred from Talnagi GP to Champadeipur GP. The reason given in the impugned office order is that they were being transferred on 'administrative ground.'

3. The learned Single Judge has while dismissing the writ petitions relied on an earlier judgment dated 11th October, 2017 in W.P.(C) No.19627 of 2017 (and batch of cases) in Jitendra Kumar Pati v. State of Orissa, which had been dismissed with the following observations:

'21. In view of the elaborate discussion made hereinabove and considering the scope and jurisdiction of the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in making interference in the matter of transfer, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for showing interference in the impugned orders rather, it is the prerogative of the competent authority to post one or the other employee to take maximum work from them which cannot be looked into by the High Court unless any arbitrariness or malice is being shown, but the petitioners have failed to show any arbitrariness or malice in these writ petitions and as such, this Court declines from interfering with the impugned orders.

22. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed.'

4. Holding that the said decision in Jitendra Kumar Pati (supra) squarely covered the case on hand, the learned Single Judge has by the impugned order dismissed the writ petitions of the present Appellants.

5. It must be noted that while issuing notice in W.A. No.401 of 2017 on 21st November 2017, this Court stayed the operation of the aforementioned order dated 14th September, 2017 and that stay order has continued since. In other words, the present Appellants have continued as such as GRS in the place of their original posting in particular GP and in effect therefore for over 5 years now, the transfer order has not been operational as far as the two Appellants in question are concerned.

6. Among the grounds raised in the writ appeals was that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that between the GP and the GRS, a master and servant relationship exists and was governed by the provisions of Orissa Gram Panchayat Act, 1964 (OGP Act), and the Collector had therefore no authority to issue such orders of transfer. Secondly, it was submitted that the impugned orders of transfer are violative of principles of natural justice since no opportunity of hearing was afforded to any of the Appellants before the transfer orders were passed. It was submitted that the authority of the GP cannot be taken away by the Collector who has exceeded his power and authority in passing the impugned orders of transfer.

7. In the counter affidavit filed in W.A. No.401 of 2017, it has been explained in detail by the Additional Secretary, Panchayati Raj & Drinking Water Department, Government of Odisha that the engagement of the GRS was only pursuant to Section 18 of the MGNREG Act and not under the OGP Act. Under Section 18 of the MGNREG Act, the State Government is mandated to make av