RAM CHARITRA CHOUDHARY Vs. MADHU KODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has Filed this writ petition in the nature of a public interest litigation for the issuance of a direction upon the respondents to make posting on the Assistant Planning Officer in the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Garhwa and also for quashing of the order dated 26.9.2007 (Annexure -2 to this writ petition) whereby the posting of respondent No. 7 as Sub -Divisional Animal Husbandry Officer, Deoghar, has been cancelled and he has been directed to continue on the post of Assistant Planning Officer, Garhwa.

(2.) THE petitioner claims himself to be a resident of Garhwa, and secretary of a registered Society namely the Gramin Bharat, Viaskh Bharati. The contention of the petitioner is that for the purpose of implementation of various development projects within the District of Garhwa, A District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) registered under the Societies Registration Act was established as a nodal agency. There is a post of Assistant Planning Officer in the aforesaid agency which is presently occupied by a mobile Veterinary doctor (respondent No. 7) who has been occupying the office since 1995. Pursuant to the notification dated 29.12.2006 issued by the Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Jharkhand, the respondent No. 7 who was posted in the District of Garhwa, was transferred to Deoghar, as a Sub -Divisional Animal Husbandry Officer and was relieved by notification dated 17.9.2007 issued by the AHD Department. Subsequently, on the request of a local MLA vide his letter addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, and on the recommendation of the Health Minister, respondent No. 1 by his letter dated 26.9.2007, directed the Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department to cancel the order of transfer of respondent No. 7 to Deoghar and to continue him on the post of Assistant Planning Officer, Garhwa. The petitioner has challenged this direction of respondent No. 1 on the ground that it is in violation of Rules of the Executive Business framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) AS per petitioner's own explanation, the local MLA had sought retention of respondent No. 7 at Garhwa on the ground that in the absence of any other officer at present, the continuance of respondent No. 7 at Garhwa was felt necessary to ensure that the development works in the district do not suffer. Apparently, the suggestion is that the continuation of respondent No. 7 in his present post at Garhwa was felt necessary till the other vacant posts are filled up. It is not understood as to how the petitioner could raise a grievance in public interest against the continuation of respondent No. 7 in office at Garhwa. The respondent No. 7 may or may not feel aggrieved as the restraint of his transfer to Deoghar has deprived him of his privilege to hold a higher post. It certainly does not call for a public grievance.