ORDER

05 /12/2022

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the impugned order dated

11.11.2022, whereby petitioner who is posted as Patwari at tehsil Bhatapara is transferred to Kasdol, tahsil Sonakhan.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has been transferred in ban period as according to the clause 1.1 of the transfer policy transfer of class-III employee at district level is to be issued from 01.09.2022 till 10.09.2022, whereas order of transfer is issued on 11.11.2022. She further contended that vide order dated 04.01.2022 petitioner is also engaged as Supervisor in the election duties, the employees who are engaged in the election duties are not to be transferred. Wife of petitioner is also a Government servant and pursuant to the order of transfer, petitioner is transferred more than

120 kms away, therefore, impugned order of transfer be interdicted.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and submits that impugned order of transfer is issued by the competent authority on administrative ground as three patwaris who are posted within the district Balodabazar Bhatapara were relieved and they were posted out of the district, therefore, for proper functioning of work of patwaris, the impugned order shifting as many as 23 patwaris including petitioner has been passed. He contended that the clauses under the transfer policy will not come to the way for issuance of transfer order of patwaris by the Collector which is clarified by the State Government in its Circular dated 12.09.2014, wherein it is mentioned that the Revenue Officers are having the competence to transfer subordinate revenue officers notwithstanding any clause under the Transfer Policy to be formulated by the State Government. He further contended that as per the handbook of Block Level Officer (BLO), transfer of Supervisor and the BLO is subject to permission to be given by District Election Officer, the authority who issued order of transfer is Collector who also is a District Election Officer. District Election Officer has also ordered that if the BLO or the Supervisor are transferred then the newly posted BLO and the Supervisor at a particular place will be engaged as BLO and the Supervisor in the election works.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.

5. Taking into consideration, facts and circumstances of the case, submission of learned counsel for the parties and the circular placed before this Court wherein it is mentioned that under Circular dated 12.09.2014, Collector notwithstanding of clauses of Transfer policy, is having the power to transfer Patwaris in public interest, and therefore, the first submission of learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned order of transfer dated 11.11.2022 transferring petitioner is in violation of transfer policy is not sustainable.

6. Sofar as, the second submission of learned counsel for petitioner with regard to petitioner engaged as Supervisor and therefore he cannot be transferred is also not sustainable in view of the letter issued by the District Election Officer placed before this Court in one other case filed by same counsel, mentioning that if BLO and the Supervisor are transferred then the incoming employees shall be appointed as BLO and the Supervisor. Further the other submission of learned counsel for petitioner with regard to posting of husband and wife is to be considered by the employer, therefore, I do not find any good ground in the writ petition to interfere with the impugned order of transfer.

7. Accordingly, writ petition is devoid of any substance which is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. However, petitioner will be at liberty to approach the competent authority for redressal of his grievance of non-posting of husband and wife to nearby place.