SANJEEV SHARAN Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) IN the instant writ petition, petitioner is aggrieved by the notification dated 25.8.2014 (Annexure -2) issued by the department of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha where under the private respondent No. 4, Nesar Ahmad has been posted as Deputy Development Commissioner, Pakur in place of the petitioner, who was earlier transferred to the said place as Deputy Development Commissioner vide notification dated 17.5.2013 bearing memo No. 4272. By the impugned notification dated 25.8.2014 petitioner has been directed to join in the department of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand.

(3.) LEARNED senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, by way of I.A. No. 4767 of 2014 has further sought to assail the subsequent notification issued on 28.8.2014 where under petitioner has been posted as Joint Secretary in the Water Resources Department. It is submitted by learned senior counsel in support of the aforesaid grounds of challenge that the respondent No. 4 is in the rank of Deputy Secretary and could not have been posted as Deputy Development Commissioner. Respondent -State in their counter affidavit has made a evasive reply to the aforesaid assertion. It is also submitted that petitioner came to the cadre of Joint Secretary on 3.6.2013 only 17 days after he was transferred as Deputy Development Commissioner, Pakur vide notification dated 17.5.2013, though at the time of transfer petitioner was holding the post of Deputy Secretary. It is further submitted that in terms of the policy resolution of 25.10.1980, petitioner should have been considered for choice posting and he should not have been displaced at the fag end of his service. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further argued that there is no suppression of fact on the part of the petitioner as the writ petition was filed on 29.8.2014 after issuance of the impugned notification dated 25.8.2014 and the subsequent notification dated 28.8.2014 was challenged through I.A. No. 4767 of 2014, which was affidavited on 3.9.2014 and filed on 09.9.2014 i.e. without any delay. It is further submitted that the question of choice of posting could only be raised, if the petitioner has been displaced just before his retirement and he cannot contemplate to file any representation without any occasion.