KAMAL SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. 207/06 -31 dated 30.6.2006, whereby respondent No. 5 - Shri Baldeo Choudhary, has been transferred and posted as District Transport Officer, Dhanbad in place of the petitioner without issuing an order of posting of the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner joined the Bihar Administrative Services and was allocated Bihar cadre. Petitioners services were given to the Transport Division vide notification dated 7 th February 2002 and petitioner was posted as District Transport Officer, Giridih. By another notification dated 30.12.2003, he was transferred to the post of District Transport Officer, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa. Again he was transferred and posted as District Transport Officer, Jamshedpur by notification dated 14.12.2004. within a short span of time, the petitioner was again transferred and posted as District Transport Officer, Dhanbad vide notification dated 11.6.2005. By the impugned notification dated 30.6.2006, respondent No. 5 Baldeo Choudhary has been transferred, and posted in his place as District Transport Officer, Dhanbad without posting the petitioner in any other place. The petitioners case is that the impugned order of transfer of respondent No. 5 in place of the petitioner has not been issued under the recommendation of any Establishment Committee, nor it was issued under the signature of Principal Secretary, rather it was issued under the signature of the Transport Commissioner. It is further alleged that the aforesaid order of posting has been made only on the recommendation of minister on extraneous consideration and not on the basis of duly constituted Establishment Committee of the Transport Department. It is further contended by the petitioner that respondent No. 5 Shri Baldeo Choudhary was posted as District Transport Officer, Dhanbad for about 2 1/2 years back and the petitioner took charge from him. But again he has been transferred and posted as District Transport Officer, Dhanbad. It is further alleged that the notification was issued on 30 th June, 2006 which was a gazetted holiday and also when the Principal Secretary was on leave.

(3.) I have heard Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri A.K. Sinha, learned Advocate General for the State and Shri Kalyan Roy, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 5.