BIDYA NAND Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of Notification No. 337(S) dated 18th January, 2007 (Annexure -4) issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, so far as it relates to the petitioner, whereby the petitioner, who has been holding the post of Assistant Engineer, National Highway, Sub - Division, Chandil, sought to be posted in Rural Engineering Organisation Department.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he is a Class -II officer. He was appointed as an Assistant Engineer, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, in the year 1987. The petitioner, in course of his service, was transferred to different places. He was ultimately transferred and posted as Assistant Engineer, National Highway, Sub -Division Chandil, by Notification No. 2574(s) dated 28th June, 2006, after keeping him waiting for posting for two years. Annual transfers were made on the recommendation of the Establishment Committee in the month of December, 2006. Order was issued by notification, being Memo No. 6155(s) dated 29th December, 2006, whereby altogether 176 persons were transferred to different places. The petitioner, who was transferred to Chandil only six months ago, was not touched in the said chain transfer. Later on, an amendment was made in the said annual transfer order and a Notification No. 337(S), contained in Memo No. 347 dated 18th January, 2007 (Annexure -4), was issued. In that order the petitioner has been sought to be transferred to Rural Engineering Organisation Department in anticipation of posting by the said impugned notification. While the petitioner was transferred to Rural Engineering Organisation Department, one Rabindra Singh, Respondent No. 5, who was transferred as Assistant Engineer, Road Sub Division, Chatra -2 just about 15 days back, was sought to be accommodated in place of the petitioner at Chandil. The petitioner has challenged the said impugned notification on the ground that the same is wholly arbitrary, unfair and contrary to the circulars and guidelines issued by the State Government and is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, who joined the place just six months ago, cannot be disturbed in whimsical manner in order to accommodate the respondent No. 5, Rabindra Singh. The transfer order is premature and without justification inasmuch as there is no material to show any administrative exigency or public interest or any reason to justify the said arbitrary order.

(3.) MR . Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner made the following submissions: The petitioner was posted at Chandil only six months ago. There is no valid or legal ground or any administrative exigency, nor any other reasonable ground for premature transfer of the petitioner and as such, the impugned transfer order is wholly illegal and arbitrary and the same has been issued with ulterior motive to accommodate the respondent No. 5, who was earlier transferred and posted at Chatra only 15 days back. The petitioner is an employee of the Road Construction Department and it is wholly false to state that the petitioner has been repatriated to his parent department i.e. Rural Engineering Organisation. Necessary approval of the Cabinet, which is mandatory pre - requisite in the case of premature transfer of Class -II Officer, has not been obtained. The impugned transfer order has been issued in the month of January contrary to the policy decision, framed for transfer and posting of Government Servant, which is wholly illegal and malicious. The said chain transfer order was made on the recommendation of the Establishment Committee in the month of December, 2006 in which the petitioner's name was not mentioned, whereas the respondent No. 5 was transferred and posted at Chatra. The respondent No. 5 did not obey the said order of transfer and defaulted in joining the post and by undue efforts successfully got the impugned order issued, accommodating himself at Chandil i.e. in place of the petitioner. Premature disturbance of the petitioner is prejudicial to him and by way of punishment. The said respondent No. 5, during the pendency of the writ petition, falsely claims to have unilaterally assumed the charge, which is sheer violation of Rule 59 of the Bihar Service Code. The petitioner has not been relieved and has not handed over the charge and he is continuing on the same post i.e. at Chandil.