LAWS(JHAR)-2010-2-46

PREM PRAKASH SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On February 15, 2010
PREM PRAKASH SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 28.01.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(S) NO.4335/2008 by which the writ application filed by the petitioner challenging the order of his transfer from Ranchi to Hazaribagh which is only at a distance of 100 KM, was under challenge. The petitioner/appellant assailed the order of his transfer on the ground that this order of transfer had been issued merely to accommodate respondent no.3, Sukhdeo Hembrom. In addition to this reason, the order was also challenged on the ground that the petitioner -appellant under the garb of the transfer order, would be posted as Assistant Director which amounts to his demotion as he had been functioning as a Deputy Director at Ranchi. The learned Single Judge while dealing with the case of the petitioner/appellant has already observed that as there was no vacant post of Assistant Director at Ranchi during the relevant time, he was allowed to officiate in the capacity of a Deputy Director. Assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it was first of all submitted that the petitioner -appellant although had not completed three years of posting at Ranchi, he was transferred to Hazaribagh. But, this part of the argument is no longer relevant as the petitioner -appellant has by now already completed three years in Ranchi by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court in his favour. Hence, the counsel had to give up this part of his submission. However it was then submitted that the order of transfer is malicious in nature as the order was passed to accommodate respondent no.3, Sukhdeo Hembrom at Ranchi. But the counsel for the appellant is missing that the petitioner/appellant's order of transfer could not be assailed on any legal ground as he has completed the required three years period at Ranchi. His grievance against the order of transfer obviously is not fit to be sustained and this should not have been over -looked by the appellant.