SURENDRA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INITIALLY , prayer of the petitioner in this application was to quash the order dated 24.5.2004 (Annexure -3) whereby he was transferred from the office of the Civil Surgeon, Aurangabad to that of the office of the District R.C.H., Aurangabad as clerk. However, fateron, petitioner has been transferred to Additional Primary Health Centre, Obra by order dated 19.6.2004 (Annexure -5) and his prayer now is to quash the said order.

(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner is a clerk and was deputed in the office of the Civil Surgeon, Aurangabad, hereinafter referred to as Respondent No. 3, in the year 1990 and remained posted there on deputation till 1996. Thereafter he was posted there, where he continued till passing of the impugned order. It seems that a question was raised on the floor of the Assembly in regard thereto and the Director -in -Chief, hereinafter referred to as Respondent No. 2, vide its letter dated 15.12.2003 (Annexure -2) addressed to Respondent No. 3 directed to transfer him to any other place in the district and to communicate the said order by fax by 18.12.2003. It seems that the said direction was not carried out within the time but lateron by memo dated 24.5.2004, petitioner was transferred from the office of Respondent No. 3 to that of the District R.C.H. Aurangabad. The aforesaid order of transfer, perhaps, did not come to the notice of Respondent No. 2 and by order dated 11.6.2004, (Annexure -4), he wrote to Respondent No.

(3.) JUNIOR Counsel to Standing Counsel No. 2, however, contends that Respondent No.2 is the superior officer in the hierarchy and nothing prevents him to advise the inferior authority to act in a particular manner. He points out that the petitioner was working in the office of Respondent No. 3 for long 12 years and when the said fact came to the notice of Respondent No. 2, through a question raised in the floor of the Assembly, it advised Respondent No. 3 to transfer him to any other place. He highlights that Respondent No. 3 was to pass the order and to communicate the same by 18.12.2003 but he had not chosen to pass the said order within the stipulated time and passed the order on 24.5.2004. He contends that the said order did not come to the notice of Respondent No. 2 and hence, by letter dated 11.6.2004 (Annexure -4), he directed Respondent No. 3 to post him at the vacant post in any distant Primary Health Centre or Additional Primary Health Centre and hence, the action of Respondent No. 3 in transferring the petitioner by the impugned order, cannot be said to be illegal.