RAJEEV RANJAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition the petitioner has assailed the validity of the office order dated 9-3-96, issued by the Director, Secondary Education (respondent No.2), contained in annexure-1,whereby he has stayed the order of transfer contained in letter No. 69 dated 26-12-95 of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, the petitioner on being relieved from his earlier posting in the office of the District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur,submitted his joining in the office of the Regional Deputy director of Education, Muzaffarpur on 4-1-96. Respondent No. 4 was transferred to Motihari vide the aforesaid order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Muzaffarpur. The petitioner claims that he was relieved on 4-1-96 from his earlier post and joined in the office of the Regional Deputy Director of Education on the same day. It is claimed by the petitioner that respondent No. 4 was relieved on 5-1-96 vide Annexure-5. It is stated that the petitioner, since after his joining started working in the office of the Regional Deputy Director of Education,Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur and also received his salary fromthe said office.

(2.) According to the petitioner, the order of transfer contained in annexure- 2 was fully implemented. It is alleged that later, respondent No.4 influenced one Member of the Legislative Assembly from Bettiah Sri VimalYadav, who wrote to the Minister incharge for stay of his transfer and consequently, the Minister incharge directed the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar for stay of his transfer and pursuant to the said direction of the Minister the impugned order contained in annexure '1' was issued.

(3.) Despite opportunity being given, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and its officers (respondent Nos. 1 to 3). However, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4. In the said counter affidavit, inter alia, it is contended that the order of transfer 9AnnExure 2), .hough purported to have been issued pursuant to the decision of the Divisional Establishment Committee, in fact, no such meeting of the Establishment Committee was held. According to respondent No. 4 the said fact is also evident from Annexure-D series, which have been written by its member-the Dist. Education Officers, Vaishali, Sitamarhi and Muzaffarpur. Further, respondent No.4, in the counter affidavit has tried to assail the validity of the appointment of the petitioner itself.