RAM NARESH ROY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Rama Kant Sharma for the petitioner, Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, Government Pleader No. II for respondent nos. 1 to 3, and Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha for respondent no. 4 (Satyendra Kumar Choud -hary). This writ petition is directed against that part of the order bearina Notification No. 2 -Stha./P1 -313/2005 -4341 (S) Patna, dated 30.6.2005 (Annexure -1), whereby the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Assistant Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Subdivision, Danapur to Rajauli, in the capacity of Assistant Engineer, National High Way Subdivision, Rajauli, and respondent no. 4 has been transferred from the post of Assistant Engineer, Building Construction Subdivision No. 3, Patna, to the aforesaid position of the petitioner at Danapur.

(2.) ACCORDING to the writ petition, the petitioner on transfer from the earlier posting had joined his aforesaid position in June 2003, and has remained there up to 30.6.2005 i.e. till the issuance of the impugned order. The respondent authorities in the Department of Road Construction issued notification No. 2 -Stha./P1 -308/2005 - 4339(S) Patna, dated 30.6.2005 (Annexure -2), whereby as many as 176 Assistant Engineers were transferred from one Engineering Department(s) to another Department(s). Neither the petitioner nor respondent no. 4 figured in the said notification dated 30.6.2005 (Annexure -2), for the reason that the petitioner had completed two years in Danapur, and respondent no. 4 had completed six months in Patna. It is further stated in the writ petition that Subhash Prasad Yadav, a Member of the Rajya Sabha, addressed his letter dated 26.5.2005 (Annexure -4), to the Secretary, Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna, recommending transfer and posting of respondent no. 4 from his aforesaid posting in Patna to the aforesaid position at Danapur, and one more person. That this led to the transfer of respondent no. 4 from Patna to Danapur, as a result of which the petitioner was transferred from Danapur to Rajauli. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) WHILE assailing the validity of the impugned action, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is obviously not in public interest nor in exigencies of business. The petitioner has been elbowed out from Danapur pre -ma -turely to accommodate respondent no. 4. in his position, and that too at the behest of a Member of the Rajya Sabha, otherwise there was neither the occasion to transfer the petitioner nor respondent no. 4 who have not completed their tenures. He relies on the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1985 PLJR 931 (Sri Abdul Muttalib vs. State of Bihar and others.)