Tripura High Court
Debashish Roy vs The State Of Tripura (To Be Represented ... on 1 August, 2025
Page 1 of 8
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.324 of 2025
Debashish Roy,
Son of Late Swadesh Ranjan Roy,
Resident of College Tilla, Adarsha Palli, Agartala, West Tripura,
PIN- 799004, (Age-50 years).
........Petitioner(s)
-Versus-
1. The State of Tripura (to be represented by),
The Principal Secretary, Education (School) Department,
Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Building, New Capital
Complex, Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala, West
Tripura, PIN- 799010.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education (School) Department,
Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Building, New Capital
Complex, Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala, West
Tripura, PIN- 799010.
3. The Special Secretary, Education (School) Department,
Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Building, New Capital
Complex, Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala, West
Tripura, PIN- 799010.
4. The Additional Secretary, Education (School) Department,
Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Building, New Capital
Complex, Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala, West
Tripura, PIN- 799010.
5. The Director of Elementary Education, Government of
Tripura, Shiksha Bhawan, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura,
PIN- 799001.
6. The Director of Secondary Education, Government of
Tripura, Shiksha Bhawan, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura,
PIN- 799001.
7. The Director, State Council of Educational Research &
Training, SCERT Office, Abhoynagar, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-
799005.
........ Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Dipjyoti Paul, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Saktimoy Chakraborty, Adv. General.
Mrs. Pinki Chakraborty, Advocate.
Date of hearing and delivery : 01st August, 2025.
of Judgment & Order
Whether fit for reporting : YES
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)
Heard Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Saktimoy Chakraborty,
learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is presently posted as
OSD, SCERT (State Council of Educational Research & Training), and
simultaneously, he is also holding the post of General Secretary of
one Officers' Association, namely, Gazetted Officers' Sangh (GOS).
Vide notification dated 20.05.2025, issued by the Additional Secretary
to the Government of Tripura, he has been transferred from Agartala
to Khowai as Inspector of Schools. Challenging the said transfer
order, the present writ petition has been filed on the ground that the
State Government, vide memorandum dated 28.02.1994 formulated
certain guidelines regarding the transfer of office bearers at both
State Level and Sub-Divisional Level of recognized employees'
association putting down that 3(three) State Level Office Bearers by
designation and 2(two) Sub-Divisional Level Office Bearers by
designation of any recognized employees' association or its
constituent unit shall be given special privilege in the matter of
transfer to the extent that their transfer when warranted by
administrative requirements, shall be issued only with the approval of
the Departmental Minister concerned. The relevant notification dated
28.02.1994 is entirely extracted hereunder for better understanding:
"GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA
APPOINTMENT AND SERVICES DEPARTMENT
NO.F.23(24)-GA/93 Dated, the 28th Feb, 94
The Undersigned is directed to state that henceforth,
3(three) State level office bearers, by designation and 2 (two) Sub
Division level officer bearers, by designation of any recognised
employees association or its constituent unit shall be given special
privilege in the matter of transfer to the extent that their transfers
when warranted by administrative requirements, shall be issued only
with the approval of the departmental Minister concerned.
2. It is also clarified that administrative requirement shall be
paramount and the privilege conferred on certain categories of office
bearers by this memorandum shall not override the prerogative of
the Government to transfer any of its employees,
3. It is also clarified that the reference to state level
committee shall not include state level office bearers in every
Directorate or Department but a total of three office bearers, by
designation of each Association/constituent unit based at Agartala. It
is also clarified that the total members of office bearers of each
recognised Association/constituent unit at the Sub-Division level for
the purpose of this Memorandum shall be 2(two) at each Sub-division
and not 2(two) in each office located at the same time at Sub-
Division.
Explanation (1) : For the purpose of this memorandum 3(three) State
Level Office Bearers by designation of any recognized and Employee's
Association or its constituent unit based at Agartala shall mean the
following, namely:-
(a) President or Chairman, or by any (other designation),
(b) Secretary General or General Secretary or Secretary by any
other designation,
(c) Treasurer, Cashier or by any other designation,
as may be applicable to the concerned Association or constituent unit
based at Agartala.
Explanation (2) : For the purpose of this memorandum, 2(two) Sub-
Divisional Level Office Bearers, by designation of any recognised
Employee's Association or its constituent unit at Sub-Divisional Level
shall mean the following, namely:-
(a) President or Chairmen or by any other designation
(b) General Secretary or Secretary or by any other designation
as may be applicable to the concerned Association or its constituent
unit at Sub-Divisional Level.
4. This Memorandum is issued in supersession of all
Memorandum and instructions issued in the behalf the including the
following Memorandum and instructions:-
(i) No.F.3(16)-CM/PS/79 dated 21.6.1979
(ii) No.F.3(16)-CM/PS/79 dated 28.6.1979
(iii) No.F.3(16)-CM/PS/79 dated 5.7.1979
(iv) No.F.3(16)-CM/PS/79 dated 11.7.1979
of C.M's Secretariat
Sd/-
(R.K. Vaish)
Commissioner-cum-Secretary
Govt of Tripura"
3. Mr. Purusuttam Roy Barman, learned senior counsel argues
that already 2(two) Office Bearers i.e. the President and Treasurer of
Gazetted Officers' Sangh have already been transferred and the third
one is the present petitioner, who being a General Secretary is entitled
to enjoy the privilege as provided in said notification dated 28.02.1994
but in utter violation of the same, he has been transferred. Referring to
the file note concerning to such transfer, Mr. Barman, learned senior
counsel, also contends that the fact that the petitioner was a State Level
Office Bearer of said association, was not brought to the notice of the
concerned Minister of the Department. Therefore, though the approval
of the Minister of the Department was obtained in the file note, it was
not actually a conscious decision of the concerned Minister in terms of
said memorandum dated 28.02.1994.
4. Learned senior counsel also submits that the petitioner has
been transferred as Inspector of Schools at Khowai, which post is
already held by another person, and therefore, 2(two) persons cannot
be accommodated against a single post. Further contention of the
learned senior counsel is that, with the approval of the Department, the
petitioner is also holding the charge of Secretary, Managing Committee
of Mahatma Gandhi Memorial H.S. School, Agartala, in addition to his
normal duty and such transfer order would affect the administrative
requirements of his service to be rendered in that management
committee. Finally, learned senior counsel submits that, after raising all
the facts and grievances, the petitioner submitted one representation on
21.05.2025 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) to respondent No.5 and
the President of their Association also wrote to respondents No.5 & 6 in
this regard, but no response was received from said respondents there
against. Learned senior counsel strongly addresses that the transfer
order was issued in gross violation of the guideline dated 28.02.1994, as
framed by the State itself, and therefore, the transfer order is liable to
be quashed.
5. Mr. Saktimoy Chakraborty, learned Advocate General on the
other hand submits that as per the said guideline dated 28.02.1994
itself, the administrative requirement is of paramount consideration of
the transfer than any other factor including the privileges conferred on
certain Office Bearers under the said guidelines, and the guidelines
cannot override the prerogative of the government to transfer its
employee at any other place in the need of public interest. In the
present case, learned Advocate General, submits that the transfer order
itself would show that it was issued in public interest, which otherwise
indicates existence of administrative necessity for such transfer. Learned
Advocate General also contends that, before issuing the transfer order in
terms of said guidelines, necessary approval from the Departmental
Minister was obtained, and therefore, there was no violation of the said
guideline.
6. The third contention, as raised by learned Advocate General,
is that in no way, even despite existence of any such guidelines, an
employee who is transferred by its employer under public interest can
claim quashing of the transfer order just because of violation of some
guidelines, unless there is any mala fides imputed on the transferring
authority or there is any flagrant violation of a statutory provision.
Learned Advocate General also relies on a decision of a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court, decided on 08.10.2020, in the case between Dr.
Bithika Choudhury vs. State of Tripura and others, WP(C) No.663
of 2020, and from the said order as it reveals that, on the verge of her
retirement, the petitioner of said case was transferred and she was also
an office bearer of a recognized employees' association. When the
matter was challenged before this Court, it was observed by the Court
that the said transfer order was issued after concurrence and clearance
by the concerned Minister and, moreover, the Court would not normally
interfere unless the transfer order was shown to be mala fide or was
opposed to the statutory provision. Further observation was also made
therein that the transfer guidelines did not confer any legally justifiable
right upon any employee. In that case also the claim of the petitioner
was based on the present office memorandum dated 28.02.1994.
Learned Advocate General submits that the said decision of the learned
Co-ordinate Bench was also affirmed by the Division bench of this Court.
7. This Court has given due consideration to the rival
contentions of both sides and has considered the relevant documents
meticulously. Law is settled that unless there is mala fide or a violation
of any statutory provision, the Court does not interfere with the transfer
order. In the case of Union of India and others vs. S.L. Abbas, AIR
1993 SC 2444, it has been categorically observed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that who should be transferred where, is a matter of
appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated
by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the
Court cannot interfere with it. However, additionally it was also observed
that while ordering the transfer, the authority must keep in mind that
the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. The entire
relevant paragraph No.7 of the said decision is extracted hereunder:
"7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate
authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala
fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court
cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no
doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the
Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any
representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority
must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of
administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband
and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline
however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally
enforceable right."
8. In view of the above position of law, the petitioner cannot
claim quashing of the transfer order as a matter of his legal right even if
said guidelines are violated by the concerned Department as there is no
allegation of any mala fide or violation of statutory provision. However,
simultaneously it has also been the obligation of the transferring
authority to keep in mind the guidelines issued by the State in this
regard and thereafter to take proper decision. The concerned file note
(Annexure-R/1 to the writ petition) as submitted from the side of
respondents shows that by a general note of routine nature, total 14
Nos. of persons were proposed to be transferred at different places. The
relevant portion of said file note is excerpted below:
"Note
This is regarding transfer proposal of Officers under
Secondary Education, Elementary Education and SCERT.
Following officers of Education Department are working in
different capacities like OSDs in Directorate of Secondary Education,
Elementary Education, SCERT and some schools for long time. So
these officers under Education Department are proposed to be
transferred to the new locations..........."
9. Thereafter, the approval of Departmental Minister was taken
thereon. As it appears, there was no mention of the existence of said
guidelines dated 28.02.1994 in the said file note, nor the fact that the
petitioner was also working as an office bearer of a recognized
Employees' Association, namely, Gazetted Officers' Sangh, was brought
to the notice of the Minister for consideration before taking such
approval. Therefore, there was no scope for the Departmental Minister
to apply his mind on that point and to take a conscious decision thereon.
As per the guidelines, it is only for the concerned Minister to take the
decision on that issue. As already indicated earlier, it is not the case of
the petitioner that there was mala fide or violation of any statutory
provision in the impugned transfer order, therefore, Court is not inclined
to set aside the same. However, as per the object of the said guidelines
itself, all the related facts were/are required to be placed before the
Departmental Minister for his conscious decision on this issue and in the
present case, all these facts are already agitated by the petitioner in the
above said representation. Therefore, if the said representation is placed
before the Departmental Minister, his decision on the said
representation will serve the purpose of obtaining his conscious
decision/views on this issue.
10. Considering all these aspects and based on the discussion
made hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to
respondent No.5 to place the above said representation dated
21.05.2025 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) before the Departmental
Minister within 7(seven) days from today for his decision in this regard.
Meanwhile, release order of the present petitioner shall not be given
effect until the decision of the concerned Minister is obtained and
conveyed to the petitioner.
With such observations and directions, the writ petition is
disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.
JUDGE
SATABD by SATABDI
DUTTA
I DUTTA Date: 2025.08.03
13:13:35 +05'30'
Dinashree
