Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. The petitioner in this application has prayed for quashing of the notification being Notification No.426 dated 30th June, 1993 whare by the petitioner was transferred from the post of District Education Officer, gopalganj and acting Regional Deputy Director of Education Saran to the post of Deputy Director, State Council of Educational Reserach and Training, patna on the administrative ground and the respondent No.3 has been transferred as Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division at chapra, as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application as also the notification No.429 dated 30th June, 1993 whereby the respondent No.4 has been transferred as District Superintendent of Education, Gopalganj. 2. The petitioner is a Class I Officer of the Bihar Education Service and has been working as a District Education Officer, Gopalganj and is also incharge of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division He has also been authorised to work as Additional Director of Education, saran-cum-Tirhut Division. 3. According to the petitioner, the respondant No.3 is junior to him and the respondent No.3 is a Class II Officer of the Bihar Education Service. 4. The petitioner has contended that he is to superannuate on 30th december, 1993. 5. It is further the contention of the petitioner that the respondent no.4 is facing criminal charges. According to the petitioner, he passed some orders of transfer and the director Secondary Education cancel the said orders of transfer allegedly on the ground that upon enquiry it was found that the petitioner was not authorised by the Department to discharge the duties and functions attached to the said post. 6. The petitioner filed a writ application in this court being CWJC No.4839 of 1993. Thereafter the petitioner filed a representation on 31st May.1993 praying therein that he be allowed to remain at his present place of posting. 7. The petitioner and the respondent Nos.3 and 4 however, have been transferred, as noticed hereinbefore, by reason of the impugned order which are contained in Annexures 5 and 6 to the writ application. 8. According to the petitioner that all the persons who have been transferred by reason of the notification as contained in Annexure-S to the writ application are junior to the petitioner excpet Shri Jugeshwar whose name finds place at serial No.7. 9. Mr. 8. According to the petitioner that all the persons who have been transferred by reason of the notification as contained in Annexure-S to the writ application are junior to the petitioner excpet Shri Jugeshwar whose name finds place at serial No.7. 9. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has Inter-alia submitted that the Director Primary Education has no jurisdiction to cancel the order of transfer passed by the petitioner which is the subject matter of aforementioned CWJC No.4839 of 1993. 10. The learned counsel further submitted that the reasons for his transfer shall also appear from the statements made in the counter affidavit to the effect that the petitioner had in fact been transferred on the direction of the Lokauakta as would be evident fr6m the letter of the Deputy Secretary of the Lokaukta as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2. In the said lettter it was stated that in many schools in the Saran Division appointments had been made on the basis of the forged certificates and in view of the fact that an enquiry in this behalf was pending, it is necessary that the petitioner Shri Shila Nath Rai and others be transferred outside the Chapra Division. 11. Mr. Singh submitted that in fact having come to learn about the fact that some illegal appointments have been made, the petitioner himself lodged a first information report. 12. The learned counsel submitted that it is, therefore, clear that the petitioner has been transferred by way of or in lieu of punishment whereof he was neither given any notice nor any enquiry was held. 13. It was further submitted that in any event, the lokauakta can not have any lay in the matter of transfer of class I officers. 14. Mrs. Seema AH Khan, the learned Standing Counsel No.7 has however submitted that it is not correct to contend that the petitioner had been transferred by way of punishment inasmuch as only the suggestion of the lokauakta has been taken into consideration and the impugned order had been passed by the Establishment Committee. 14. Mrs. Seema AH Khan, the learned Standing Counsel No.7 has however submitted that it is not correct to contend that the petitioner had been transferred by way of punishment inasmuch as only the suggestion of the lokauakta has been taken into consideration and the impugned order had been passed by the Establishment Committee. It was further subimitted that so far as the question of transfer is concerned, the policy decision of the State of Bihar that a person should be given his last posting according to his choice is directory in nature inasmuch as a person can be tranferred on administrative exigencies. 15. It was further submitted that from a perusal of Annexure-5 and 6 to the writ petition, it would appear that several persons had been transferred thereby. 16. Mr. A. K. Malliak, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.3 submitted that it is not correct to contend that the respondent No.3 is not a class I Officer, as would be evident from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit whereby and whereunder the respondent No.3 has been promoted to the post of Class I Officer of Bihar Education Service. 17. It was further submitted that the petitioner was posted as regional Deputy Director of Education and Additional Deputy Director of Education Tirhut Division only by way of stop-gap arrangement and therefor, he does not have any legal right to continue on the said post. Our attention was further drawn to. paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 wherein it was stated thus :- "that under reply with regard to statements made in this paragraphs it is important to mention that the Dy. Secretary to the Hon ble lokayukta of Bihar made a confidential report regarding the petitioner that he was tempering with the documents relating to fake appointments. The Hon ble Lokayukta further advised the department to transfer this officer to another division from his present place of posting in public interest. " 18. It was further submitted that the respondent No.3 had already joined the post on 6-7-93 and as the petitioner has refused to hand over charge, he is assumed charge of the office as would be evident from Annexure-D to the counter affidavit. 19. In this connection our attention has also been drawn to paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3. 19. In this connection our attention has also been drawn to paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3. 20. It is true that a Lokauakta does not have any say in the matter of transfer. 21. However, from a perusal of Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, it is evident that an enquiry had been going on as to whether many appointments have been made in the saran division on the basis of forged certificates or not if while holding such an enquiry, it is deemed desirable that the petitioner should not be allowed to remain Incharge of the Office of Regional Deputy Director of Education, and if such a suggestion is accepted by the Establishment Committee, the same cannot be said to be an irrelevant consideration. 22. It is needless to say by reason of such a transfer, no stigma is cast upon the Officer concerned and the same is made only to facilitate a fair and impartial enquiry by a statutory authority. 23. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the petitioner has either been transferred on an extraneous consideration or by way of or in lieu of punishment. The impugned orders of transfer in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot also be said to be mala fide in nature. 24. Further as noticed hereinbefore, the respondent No.3 has already joined his office on 6-7-1993 25. In this situtation, in our opinion, it would not be proper to disturb the posting of respondent No.3 also. 26. It is now well known that an order of transfer normally is not interferred with by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 27. Reference in this connection may be made to AIR 1993 S. C.1236, AIR 1993 S. C.1605 and "1993 (3) Jt. Today (S. C.) 678 as also a recent division Bench decision of this court in 1993 (2) Bihar Law judgment page 7. 28. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. Application Dismissed.