JUDGMENT B. S. Sinha, J. The prayer in this application is to quash Annexure-1, 2 and 3, appended to it. Annexure-1 is an order dated 20.2.1980 passed by the Director, Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar, transferring the petitioner from administrative point of view as Upper division clerk in the Agriculture Department at Hazaribagh. Annexure-2 is an order dated 23.2.1980 inflicting certain punishments on the petitioner as a result of departmental proceeding initiated against him and Annexure-3 is a communication dated 23.2.1980 relieving the petitioner to enable him to join at Hazaribagh. 2. At the stage of arguments Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the petitioner has said that he will not press this application for quashing of Annexure-2 and that for the remedies against this annexure he will file an appeal before the authority. He has in his submissions confined himself to the quashing of Annexure 1 and 3. 3. The relevant facts for the disposal of this application are that the petitioner on 18.8.1980 was appointed as an Assistant in the Sugar Cane Research sub-station at Pusa. On 11.1.1956 he was appointed clerk in the office of Agriculture Engineer (Research), Patna, where he passed the departmental examination in higher standard accounts. On 1.6.62 the petitioner was posted as a Store Keeper in the same office in the upgraded scale of Rs. 75-2-140 and on 1.1.1973 be was promoted as an accountant in the scale of Rs. 340-10-490. In 1976 the petitioner was confirmed as an Accountant. 4. On certain charges the petitioner was suspended with immediate effect on 3.3.1979 and on 27.4.1979 a departmental proceeding was started against the petitioner on a number of charges. At the departmental enquiry the officer conducting it held all the charges partially proved against the petitioner and he thereafter suggested certain punishments. On the basis of that certain punishments were inflicted upon him by Annexure-2. Two days before the passing of the order of punishment, as I have said above, the petitioner by the impugned order has been transferred to Hazaribagh. 5. Although the record of this case is voluminous and various facts have been brought on the record, it is not necessary to consider there at all. In an application filed for stay the petitioner has referred to communications of the Department of Agriculture dated 1.9.1956, a copy of which is annexure-8 appended to that application. 5. Although the record of this case is voluminous and various facts have been brought on the record, it is not necessary to consider there at all. In an application filed for stay the petitioner has referred to communications of the Department of Agriculture dated 1.9.1956, a copy of which is annexure-8 appended to that application. In it, it is stated that all the heads of the office of the Agriculture Department are the appointing authorities in respect of their own ministerial staff. It is not possible to maintain a general gradation list of all such employees. It ill further stated that every Section or Range is an unit and as such gradation list of ministerial staff in each Section or Range is maintained and the cases of their promotion and confirmation are made strictly in order of seniority and good record of service, as per decision conveyed in earlier orders. Although the whole order has not been quoted in Annexure-8, the whole order has been placed before us and it further says that if in any unit a suitable hand is not available for promotion, then after consultation suitable hands may be appointed from other units, but such appointments should be treated as fresh appointment. By going through this letter it is obvious that for ministerial staff there is no combined grade in the Agriculture Department, there are separate units. It has not been disputed before us that Patna is a separate and distinct unit from Hazaribagh. As the petitioner was employed from the very beginning in Patna, he could not have been transferred from Patna unit to Hazaribagh unit, It could only be done when there is a vacancy in higher post and no suitable person was available in Hazaribagh unit. The petitioner then could have been appointed on such promoted post, but his appointment would have to be considered as a new appointment. It follows, therefore, that if the order of transfer is permitted to stand, then not only the order is in violation of Annexure-8, but the petitioner would also loose the seniority that he has got in his unit at Patna. I have, therefore, no option but to quash Annexure-1. 6. In the result, this applications is allowed to the extent indicated above and Annexure-1 and 3 are quashed. In the circumstances of the case, I would however make no order as to costs. I have, therefore, no option but to quash Annexure-1. 6. In the result, this applications is allowed to the extent indicated above and Annexure-1 and 3 are quashed. In the circumstances of the case, I would however make no order as to costs. Application allowed.