Judgment R. M. Prasad, J. 1. In the present writ petition the petitioner has assailed the validity of the office order dated 9-3-96, issued by the Director, Secondary education (respondent No.2), contained in annexure-1,whereby he has stayed the order of transfer contained in letter No.69 dated 26-12-95 of the regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, pursuant to the aforesaid order of the regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, the petitioner on being relieved from his earlier posting in the office of the District Superintendent of Education, muzaffarpur,submitted his joining in the office of the Regional Deputy director of Education, Muzaffarpur on 4-1-96. Respondent No.4 was transferred to Motihari vide the aforesaid order of the Regional Deputy Director of education, Muzaffarpur. The petitioner claims that he was relieved on 4-1-96 from his earlier post and joined in the office of the Regional Deputy Director of Education on the same day. It is claimed by the petitioner that respondent No.4 was relieved on 5-1-96 vide annexure-5. It is stated that the petitioner, since after his joining started working in the office of the regional Deputy Director of Education,tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur and also received his salary fromthe said office. 2. According to the petitioner, the order of transfer contained in annexure-2 was fully implemented. It is alleged that later, respondent No.4 influenced one Member of the Legislative Assembly from Bettiah Sri Vimalyadav, who wrote to the Minister incharge for stay of his transfer and consequently, the minister incharge directed the Director, secondary Education, Bihar for stay of his transfer and pursuant to the said direction of the Minister the impugned order contained in annexure 1 was issued. 3. Despite opportunity being given, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and its officers (respondent Nos.1 to 3 ). However, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.4. In the said counter affidavit, inter alia, it is contended that the order of transfer 9annexure 2),. hough purported to have been issued pursuant to the decision of the Divisional Establishment Committee, in fact, no such meeting of the Establishment Committee was held. According to respondent no.4 the said fact is also evident from annexure-D series, which have been written by its member-the Dist. Education Officers, Vaishali, Sitamarhi and muzaffarpur. hough purported to have been issued pursuant to the decision of the Divisional Establishment Committee, in fact, no such meeting of the Establishment Committee was held. According to respondent no.4 the said fact is also evident from annexure-D series, which have been written by its member-the Dist. Education Officers, Vaishali, Sitamarhi and muzaffarpur. Further, respondent No.4, in the counter affidavit has tried to assail the validity of the appointment of the petitioner itself. 4. A reply to the counter affidavit has been filed, in paragraph 15 of which it is stated that the transfer order has been passed on the recommendation of the Establishment Committee and out of the five members, three members were present in the said meeting of the aforesaid committee. 5. Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after the order of transfer had already been fully given effect to, there couldnot be any question of stay of the said order by any authority. It was also submitted that the impugned order of stay has been passed in a malafide manner at the instance of the aforementioned Member of the Bihar Legislative assembly, just to accommodate respondent No.4, who has been posted in the same office now for about twelve years. 6. Mr. Tarakant Jha, Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submitted that since the Regional Deputy director of Education, Tirhut Division, muzaffarpur acted in malafide manner, in issuing the order of transfer, contained in annexure- 2, without holding any meeting or recommendation of the establishment Committee, the Director being the superior Officer was justified in passing the impugned order. He also submitted that several complaints were received regarding the irregularities committed by the Regional Deputy director of Education in passing the order contained in annexure-2 and the matter is under enquiry at the State government level. 7. The learned standing counsel no.9 also submitted that in view of the complaints received, the matter is being enquired into by the State Govt. and thus, in the meantime, the order of transfer has been stayed vide annexure-1. 8. I am unable to appreciate the stand of the learned Standing Counsel as well as of Mr. Jha. It is not disputed that the petitioner, pursuant to the order of transfer was relieve from his earlier post on 4-1-96 and joined in the office of the Regional Deputy Director of Education. 8. I am unable to appreciate the stand of the learned Standing Counsel as well as of Mr. Jha. It is not disputed that the petitioner, pursuant to the order of transfer was relieve from his earlier post on 4-1-96 and joined in the office of the Regional Deputy Director of Education. Tirhut division, Muzaffarpur on the same day vide Annexure 4. It is also not disputed that he received salary also for the period till the impugned order was passed. Thus, in my opinion, it had rightly been submitted by Mr. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that there could not be any question of stay of the order of transfer which has already been given effect to even assuming that any irregularity was committed and the matter is being enquired into by the department, the department could have taken final decision and cancelled the order of transfer if found to have been passed in violation of any rule or without any authority, by the Regional deputy Director of Education. Moreover, I do not find any justification to stay the transfer of respondent no.4, who admittedly has been posted in the office of the Regional Dy. Director of Education, Tirhut Division, muzaffarpur for over 12 long years, specially when it is not disputed that respondent No.3 was the competent authority. It may be true that under government policy, decisions regarding transfers are normally taken on the recommendation of the Establishment committee, constituted for the said purpose, but it has been held by this court in the case of Man Singh V/s. The state of Bihar and others, reported in 1982 B. B. C. J. , 392 that non-compliance of the said procedure will not vitiate the order of transfer passed by the competent authority. 9. Thus, in my opinion, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is thus allowed, but without costs. Petition Allowed.