KRISHNA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application is directed against the order of the Project Co-ordinator of tube-well Project, Minor Irrigation, Patna (respondent no. 3), contained in Memo No. 2498 dated 8. 9. 1988 at Annexure 7, whereby the petitioner, who was Accountant at tube-well Construction Division, Ara, has been transferred to Tube-well Division, begusarai, due to administrative reasons.

(2.) IT appears that this writ petition was first time heard on 16. 9. 1988, when three weeks' time was granted to the learned standing Counsel to obtain instructions and file counter affidavit, if any, so that the application may be disposed of at the admission stage itself. In the meantime, status quo as obtaining on that date was ordered to be maintained by a Division Bench of this Court. The stay matter was further heard on 11th October, 1988 by a Division bench which clarified that the status quo, on the facts of this case, means that the petitioner continues in his office as the divisional Accountant and shall not be disturbed until further order is passed in the writ application. Thereafter the matter was never posted.

(3.) IN 1994 when by an order dated 26. 8. 1994, vide Annexure 4 to M. J. C. application, the petitioner was sought to be transferred from Tube-well Division, Chapra to Tube-well Division, Darbhanga, on M. J. C. application, being M. J. C. No. 1426 of 1994. was filed in this Court. By an order dated 20. 7. 1995, the contempt proceeding was, however, dropped, but the Division Bench of this Court directed for listing of the writ application which was seven years old before me in the next weeks as first case, subject to part heard, if any. On 3. 8. 1995 the writ application was listed before me and from the office note, I was surprised to find that the original High Court file of the writ application had already been destroyed, as was reported by the Record room, although the writ application was pending for admission itself. However, in the said circumstances, I directed the matter to be placed before a Bench, presided over by hon'ble Chief Justice, which had passed order on 20. 7. 1995 for further direction. On 9. 8. 1995 the Division Bench directed for reconstruction of the record and accordingly, the matter was placed before me on 28. 8. 1995 after the record was reconstructed. Then learned counsel for the petitioner and the state were heard and the order was reserved.