RAM SHANKAR JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Professor and Head of the Department of Pathology, Patna Medical College Hospital, Patna has filed this writ application to seek quashing of part of an order dated 9.11.2000 contained in Anneuxre -8 by which he has been transferred from Patna Medical College Hospital to Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College, Bhagalpur. Though by order contained in Anneuxre -8 five more Professors/Associate Professors have been transferred from one Medical College to another but since there are not chain transfer and petitioner has no concern with other transfers hence the transfer of other five persons is not in question in this writ application.

(2.) COUNTER affidavits, supplementary counter affidavits as well as rejoinders to such counter -affidavits have been filed and after hearing the parties in detail on various dates this writ application is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself.

(3.) THE aforesaid facts are not in dispute. However, the petitioner has further pleaded several facts in. order to challenge the impugned order of transfer. It will be appropriate to deal with such facts while dealing with different grounds of such challenge as urged by learned counsel for the petitioner. First of all the petitioner has alleged personal malafide against respondent no. 2, the Secretary, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Bihar, Patna who has been made respondent by name. In this regard petitioner 's case is that some students of his department including one Yasmin Rahman were not sent up due to short -tall in attendance and poor marks obtained by them in the Internal Assessment Examination. The Principal of the College directed for holding extra classes for such students so that they could make up the short -fall in their attendance. Petitioner wanted some clarification in this matter on the basis of M.C.I. Rules and thereupon he was called by the Principal, respondent no. 5 in his chamber for discussion. In paragraph 14 of the writ application it was mentioned that respondent no. 2 had called the petitioner in his chamber for discussion but through a supplementary affidavit a correction was made and it was stated that respondent no. 2 was wrongly typed in place of respondent no. 5 due to clerical/typographical error. According to petitioner respondent no. 5 gave out that Yasmin Rahman is a close relation of respondent no. 2 and if she is not sent up respondent no. 2 will take serious view of the matter. Some further correspondence followed and although the petitioner ultimately arranged for extra classes but his rigid stand in the matter caused an -noynace to respondent no. 2 and hence at his instance the petitioner was penalised by way of transfer.