RAJ KUMAR RAJESH Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) By the impugned notification dated 03.09.2014, Annexure-2 issued by the Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Assistant Engineer, Road Sub-division-2, Deoghar, Road Division, Deoghaf to the post of Assistant. Engineer, Ring Road Sub-Division No. 3, Ranchi, Ring Road Division, Ranchi.

(3.) Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has assailed the said impugned order of transfer on the ground that he has been shifted within a period of ten months after the last order of. transfer dated 01.11.2013. It is further submitted that within a period of three years starting from 07.10.2011, the petitioner has been transferred thrice in the nature of successive transfer, which has seriously affected the petitioner because of frequent displacement. It is submitted by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the policy relating to transfer and posting under the respondent-State vide Circular dated 25.10.1980 stipulates the tenure of three years of such employee, which is not being ' followed. He has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi v. U.P. Jal Nigam and Ors, 2003 11 SCC 740 to advance his submission that such transfers are to be effected on the basis of settled norms or guidelines. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of School Education , Madras and Ors. v. O. Karuppa Thevan and Anr, 1996 1 SLR 225 where the Hon'ble Court has also expressed its view that in effecting transfer, the fact that children of an employee, who are studying, may also be affected because of mid session transfer, are to be given due " weight, if the exigencies of service are not urgent. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka and Ors, 1986 4 SCC 131, para-5 and 6 in support of the aforesaid submission that such frequent, unscheduled transfer is not justified in the eyes of law and has caused prejudice to the petitioner as well. Therefore, the impugned order of transfer may be set aside.