Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 415 (PAT)

Ramawatar Lal Rana v. State Of Bihar

1997-05-20

A.N.TRIVEDI

body1997
Judgment A.N.Trivedi, J. 1. The eight Petitioners working on Class III posts in the Ranchi Mansik Arogyashala, Kanke, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as "the Arogyashala) have field this Writ Petition praying that the orders of transfer dated 21.2.1997 (Annexure 3) issued by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna, Respondent No. 3 be quashed and for consequential directions that the Petitioners be permitted to continue to work on their respective posts. 2. The case of the Petitioners is that they have been working on Class III posts in the Arogyashala and pursuant of the directions of the Supreme Court in the order dated 8.9.1994 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 339 of 1986 (Rakesh Chandra Narayan V/s. State of Bihar and Ors.), the Managing Committee of the Arogyashala has been constituted and the Arogyashala has been declared to be an Autonomous Institution to be managed by the Managing Committee presided by the Divisional Commissioner, Ranchi and all employees of the Argoyashala would be deemed to be the civil servants of the Government of Bihar and the Director of the Argoyashala would be the Appointing and Disciplinary Authority for all the B, C & D Group of employees of the Argoyashala. 3. 3. According to the Petitioners, Sri Krishna Medical College, Muzaffarpur and nine other Medical Colleges which had been established by the respective Societies registered under the Societies Registration Act were taken over by the State under the provisions of the Bihar Private Medical Colleges (Taking Over) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) but the State Government have not taken any final decision laying down the terms and conditions of services of Class HI and Class IV employees of the respective Medical Colleges and further that the Screening Committee constituted under the Act has only recommended the cases of the employees of the Argoyashala for their final absorption in the services of the State but no decision has been taken by the State Government as regards the employees similarly situate in other Medical Colleges which have been taken over by the State Government, It has been further stated that the State Government in the letter dated 23,1.1984 (Annexure 1) particularly in paragraph 2 have ordered that all persons who were working against Class III and Class IV posts should be on different cadres and shall be directly under the control of the Principal and Superintendent of the respective Colleges till final Gradation List is prepared. the Director-in-Chief, Health Services will not be the Controlling Authority of their cadre. The Petitioners claim that they had been appointed by their Controlling Authority of the Argoyashala and in terms of paragraph 4 of the letter dated 26.8.1972 of the Personnel and Administrative Department of the Government of Bihar, the Gradation List is required to be prepared of personnel working against Class III and Class IV posts and in pursuance of the said directions, the Health Department vide the letter dated 8.9.1989 (Annexure 2) directed the respective Controlling Authorities to prepare the Gradation List but no steps have been taken by the State Government to finalise the Gradation List as yet, in absence of which, promotion of the Petitioners to the next higher post have not been given effect to. 4. The Petitioners claim that they belong to separate cadre of the Arogyashala which is an Autonomous Institution and the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6, who are to replace the Petitioners in the Arogyashala. belong to different cadres and, therefore, the Respondent No. 3, Director-in-Chief. Health Services has no authority in law to transfer the Petitioners. 4. The Petitioners claim that they belong to separate cadre of the Arogyashala which is an Autonomous Institution and the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6, who are to replace the Petitioners in the Arogyashala. belong to different cadres and, therefore, the Respondent No. 3, Director-in-Chief. Health Services has no authority in law to transfer the Petitioners. The Petitioners allege that they are still working on the posts from which they are sought to be transferred and have not handed over charge nor they have been relieved and that the State Government have ordered for transfer of the persons similarly situate and later stayed the orders of transfer of those persons and further that the orders of transfer are contrary to the directions of the Supreme Court as well as the provisions of the Act. 5. The orders of transfer have been challenged inter alia on the ground that the same is mala fide, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 6. In the Supplementary Affidavit filed on behalf of the Petitioners it has inter alia been asserted that the Supreme Court directed that the Health Department of the Government of Bihar would be the Appointing and Disciplinary Authority for the Director of the Argoyashala but the order does not empower the State of Bihar or its officers to transfer the staff of the Argoyashala to different Medical Colleges and as such the same is in violation of the directions of the Supreme Court. It has further been stated that in terms of the orders of the Supreme Court, the Secretary-cum-Commissioner. Department of Health, Government of Bihar vide the order dated 2.11.1994 (Annexure 6) issue directions that service conditions of Officers and staff of the Arogyashala shall remain unchanged. It has also been stated that the Health Department of the Government of Bihar vide the letter dated 26.6.1996 had called for options form the employees of the Arogyashala as to whether they want to be deputed in the Arogyashala or not and the Petitioners in compliance of the directions contained in the letter dated 26.6.1996 have given their options that they want to remain in the Arogyashala as employees of the Health Services of the State on deputation. However, Health Department vide the letter No. 192 dated 21.3.1997 issued by the Director, Health Services has ordered that the employees of the Arogyashala shall be treated as on deputation but according to the Petitioners since the impugned orders of transfer had been issued prior to the letter dated 21.3.1997, the same cannot validate the orders of transfer of the Petitioners. The Petitioners claim that this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5944 of 1992 in the case of Md. Kalimullah and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. had held that transfer of an employee outside the cadre is invalid and in compliance of the directions of the Court, various orders had been issued by the State Authorities canceling the orders of transfer. 7. With the Supplementary Affidavit dated 8.5.1997 filed on behalf of the Petitioners, a copy of the order dated 21.3.1997 has been annexed as Annexure 10 in which it has been stated that in compliance of the directions of the Supreme Court declaring the Arogyashala be an Autonomous Body and for improvement of the administrative set up, it is necessary to transfer the employees of the State Government so as to enable the Autonomous Institution to make appointment on various posts and in the stop-gap-arrangement, other employees of the State Government have been deputed to work in the Arogyashala till such time the Managing Committee of the Arogyashala make recruitment on the posts in question. 8. In the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 3 it has been stated that the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Respondent No. 3 is the Authority competent to appoint, transfer and post and take disciplinary action against ministerial and inferiors government servants whether temporary or permanent and the Superintendent of the Arogyashala has been delegated power to take disciplinary action against ministerial and inferior government servants in terms of the provisions contained in the Bihar Health Manual and the Director, Health Services, Government of Bihar has the inherent power to appoint, transfer and post all non-gazetted employees working in the subordinate offices in terms of the Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution vide the Notification dated 15.4.1950 (Annexure C) and Rule 3 of the Bihar Bounds Miscellaneous Rules, 1958 and Sec. 21 of the Bihar Service Code. the Director-in-Chief, Health Services has absolute Authority to transfer the Petitioners. the Director-in-Chief, Health Services has absolute Authority to transfer the Petitioners. It has been stated that all the employees of the Arogyashala have been declared to be the civil servants of the Government of Bihar by the Supreme Court and the orders of transfer of the Petitioners are in administrative exigencies and in public interest for proper functioning of the Arogyashala and the State Authorities in consultation with the Managing Committee of the Arogyashala ordered for transfer of the Petitioners. It has been clarified by the Respondent No. 3 that the Petitioners, who have been transferred form the Arogysashala, v, 1 get the same scale of pay and allowances which they were receiving at the Arogyashala and there shall be no loss of status, pay or allowances and the orders of transfer shall not in any manner affect their seniority. It has been further stated that the Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 have been sent on deputation to work in the Arogyashala in place of the Petitioners. 9. In the Rejoinder Affidavit filed on behalf of the Petitioners, the averments made in the Writ Petition have been reiterated and it has been asserted that the Director of Health Services is not the Appointing Authority of the Petitioners after the Arogyashala has become an Autonomous Body and it is thus the Director of the Arogyashala who is the Appointing and Disciplinary Authority D, C & E Group of employees of the Arogyashala. Instances have been pointed out by the Petitioners in the Rejoinder Affidavit where orders of transfer issued by the State Authorities were kept in abeyance. 10. Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 10, the Member Secretary of the Managing Committee of the Arogyashala in which it has been stated that all the employees of the Arogyashala including the present Petitioners are the employees of the State Government who have been working in the Arogyashala for more than 15 years on transferrable posts and the Petitioners being the employees of the State Government, the State Government has absolute power and authority to transfer its employees from one place to another and the Petitioners would be entitled to promotion and other benefits applicable to the State Government employees in view of the Gazette Notification dated 30.9.1994 and the Seniority List of the employees is maintained the State Level. 11. 11. In the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 10 it has been further stated that the Managing Committee of the Arogyashala after examining the work and conduct of the Petitioners found that in the best interest of the Arogyashala, the services of the Petitioners had to be repatriated to the parent Department and in consultation with the Managing Committee the Competent Authority issued the orders of transfer of the Petitioners. It has been further stated that no prejudice would be caused nor the orders of transfer would adversely affect the status, scale of pay and allowances payable to the Petitioners in the Arogyashala by the orders of transfer of the Petitioners to other Medical Colleges. It has been asserted that the Petitioners are not the employees of the Arogyashala but are Government servants and are liable to be posted from one place to another with the same remuneration and benefits and further that the Arogyashala does not require the services of the Petitioners any more in the interest of the Arogyashala. 12. It is clarified by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as well as the Respondent No. 10 in their Counter Affidavits that Annexure T does not pertain to the Petitioners but relates to the employees of the Malaria Department which have special assignments and no benefits can be derived by the Petitioners from Annexure 1 and further that the Petitioners had never been appointed by the Arogyashala or its Managing Committee but by the State Authorities. With the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 10, a copy of the order dated 14.3.1997 has been annexed declaring that the Petitioners stand relieved in pursuance of the orders of transfer with immediate effect. 13. In the Rejoinder Affidavit filed on behalf of the Petitioners in reply to the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 10 it has been asserted that the allegation that the Petitioners work was not up to the mark is absolutely incorrect as they were never censured nor any notice to show cause was served upon them for any unsatisfactory work and the Supreme Court did not authorise the Respondents to punish the employees working in the Arogyashala or to transfer them in different Medical Colleges situate outside the Autonomous Institution. A reference has been made to the order dated 23.1.1984 (Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition) and it has been stated that no employee of the Arogyashala shall be transferred and it is only the Director of the Arogyashala, who could order for transfer of the Petitioners. Reference has also been made to the letter dated 14.1.1983 (Annexure 11 to the Rejoinder Affidavit) and it has been claimed that the Petitioners being the employees of the Autonomous Institution belong to a different and distinct cadre than the employees of the Medical Colleges, who belong to another cadre, and from the averments made in the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 10, the orders of transfer are punitive in nature and had been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners. It has been further stated that the order of transfer of Shekh Suleman Ansari. Petitioner No. 4 has been stayed by the State Government. 14. Mr. Kameshar Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the orders of transfer are contrary to the instructions contained in Annexure 1 which inter alia provides that transfer of Grade III and Grade IV employees cannot be mad without approval of the Health Commissioner and further that in terms of paragraph 5 of the order of the Supreme Court (Annexure E to the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents 2 & 3) it has been declared that all employees of the Arogyashala small be the civil servants of the Government of Bihar and the Director of the Arogyashala should be the Appointing and Disciplinary Authority for all B, C & D Group of employees of the Arogyashala and thus the orders of transfer issued by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Patna, Respondent No. 3 is without any authority of law and contrary to the directions of the Supreme Court. 15. Mr. Kameshwar Prasad, learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioners further contended that in view of the communication contained in the letter dated 2.11.1994 (Annexure 6 to the Petitioners Supplementary Affidavit dated 11.4.1997) the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Health. Government of Bihar informed the Divisional Commissioner, South Chotanagpur/the President of the Managing Committee of the Arogyashala that in terms of the orders of the Supreme Court. Counsel for the Petitioners further contended that in view of the communication contained in the letter dated 2.11.1994 (Annexure 6 to the Petitioners Supplementary Affidavit dated 11.4.1997) the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Health. Government of Bihar informed the Divisional Commissioner, South Chotanagpur/the President of the Managing Committee of the Arogyashala that in terms of the orders of the Supreme Court. the terms and conditions of the services of the employees working in the Arogyashala shall remain unchanged and thus the order of transfer could have been made only when there were special circumstances and for special reasons as required by Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition and since the impugned orders of transfer dated 21.2.1997 (Annexure 3) does not disclose either any special circumstances and that the orders of transfer are issued without the prior approval of the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Health Department. Government of Bihar, the same cannot be sustained and the Petitioners are being transferred to Ex-cadre posts which cannot be done in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Ramadhar Pandey V/s. State of U.P. and Ors. (1993 Supp (3) SCC 35. 16. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners referred to the proceedings of the VI meeting of the Managing Committee of the Arogyashala held on 16.12.1996 and submitted that there was no such Resolution adopted by the Managing Committee for transfer of the Petitioners but one of the Resolutions is in respect of disciplinary proceedings to the initiated against Dr. Jamal Asghar, Superintendent of the Arogyashala for his lapses of omissions and commissions regarding purchase of various materials and the Director of the Arogyashala was directed to draw up chargesheet in this connection and the Commissioner-cum Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar had informed that the orders of transfer have already been issued transferring Dr. Jamal Asgar from the Arogyashala. Learned Counsel submitted that since none of the Resolutions adopted in the Meeting of the Managing Committee held on 16.12.1996 relate to the transfer of the Petitioners, the allegations made in the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 10 that the orders of transfer of the Petitioners were with the consent of the Managing Committee is absolutely incorrect and therefore the Petitioners could not be transferred form the Arogyashala. 17. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 10 whose submissions have been adopted by Mrs. 17. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 10 whose submissions have been adopted by Mrs. Indrani Sen Choudhary, learned Standing Counsel II appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submitted that the Arogyashala does not require the services of the Petitioners and since the Petitioners have admitted that they are working on deputation as employees of the State Government in the Arogyashala, the Petitioners cannot have any legitimate objection to their repatriation to the parent Departments and in case they are aggrieved by their posting in various Medical Colleges it is open for them to make representations before the appropriate Authority but they did not have any legal right enforceable in law against the Arogyashala to insist that the Arogyashala should continue to permit the Petitioners to work on the respective posts in the Arogyashala in view of the fact that the Petitioners have been continuing in the Arogyashala for more than 15 years and the orders of transfer/repatriation of the Petitioners to their parent Departments are in public interest and for the better administration of the Arogyashala. Learned Counsel submitted that no loss of status, emoluments or allowances shall be caused to the Petitioners nor will their seniority be adversely affected on their transfer to different Medical Colleges. Learned Counsel further submitted that Annexure 1 is in respect of the employees working in the Malaria Scheme and does not apply to the general cadre of the employees of the Health Department. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Petitioners have not pointed out that there has been any violation of any statutory Rules, Orders or Regulations having the force of law on account of which the orders of transfer can be said to be in violation more so when on an appraisal of the work and conduct of the Petitioners, the Managing Committee is of the view that it is no longer necessary to avail the services of the Petitioners in the Arogyashala. Learned Counsel submitted that the Petitioners being the members of transferable service can at any time be transferred and posted at other places and it is for the State Government to decide as and when and at what places the Petitioners can be posted more so when the said orders of transfer had been made with the consent of the Managing Committee of the Arogyashala. 18. 18. On behalf of the Petitioners, a Supplementary Rejoinder Affidavit dated 15.5.1997 to the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents has been filed annexing the proceedings of the VI Meeting of the Managing Committee of the Arogyashala held on 16.12.1996 and the Report of Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Union Health Secretary (Annexure 13). 19. Mr. Kameshwar Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that in the Report of the Union Health Secretary (Annexure 13) and as also in the copy of the Office Order dated 19.8.1982 issued by the Superintendent Patliputra Medical College & Hospital, Patna in compliance of the orders of this Court staying the orders of transfer amongst others of Petitioner No. 1, Ramawatar Lal Rana and Petitioner No. 5, Nathu Sahu nothing has been pointed out as regards unsatisfactory work and conduct of the petitioners on the contrary adverse comments have been made against the State Government in treating the Arogyashala as its Subordinate Office. He further submitted that irregularities on the part of Dr. Jamal Asgar, Medical Superintendent were pointed out and the Divisional Commissioner, Ranchi was advised to make enquiries and take suitable action to ensure that irregular appointments were cancelled and there is not a single word in the Report as regards functioning of the Petitioners on Class III posts. Learned Counsel submitted that in view of Annexure 14, the Petitioners cannot be transferred as Petitioner Nos. 1 and 5 have been sent back in terms of Annexure 14 to the Supplementary Affidavit. Learned Counsel reiterated that the Petitioners transfer on ex-cadre posts is illegal in law and placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Nohiria Ram V/s. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1958 SC 113 pr 6 and in General Officer Commanding-in-Chief and Anr. V/s. Dr. Subhash Chandra Yadav and Anr. AIR 1998 SC 876. Learned Counsel reiterated that from a perusal of the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents it appears that since the work and conduct of the Petitioners have been found to be unsatisfactory, the orders of transfer is punitive in nature and could not have been issued without giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners to explain their version. 20. 20. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the material on record 1 am of the opinion that the grievance of the Petitioners that they cannot be repatriated from the Arogyashala by way of transfer and posted in different Medical Colleges in pursuance of the impugned order of transfer is wholly misconceived. The Petitioners have admitted in paragraph 5 of the Supplementary Affidavit dated 11.4.1997 filed on their behalf that the Health Department vide the letter dated 26.6.1996 directed the employees of the Arogyashala to give their options as to whether they want to be deputed in the Arogyashala or not and the Petitioners in compliance of the directions of the Health Department gave their options that they want to remain in the Arogyashala as the employees of the Health Department on deputation. The Petitioners have further admitted in paragraph 4 of the said Supplementary Affidavit that in terms of the letter dated 2.11.1994 (Annexure 6 to the Supplementary Affidavit) the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Health in compliance of the directions of the Supreme Court vide his order in Memo No. 458/10 dated 2.11.1994 (Annexure 6) issued directions that the service conditions of the Officers and staff of the Ranchi Mental Arogyashala shall remain unchanged. Further from perusal of the Report of the Union Health Secretary (Annexure 13 to the Supplementary Affidavit dated 15.5.1997) it appears that follow up action had been taken by the Managing Committee of the Arogyashala in its Meeting dated 16,12.1996 and the proceedings of the Meeting (Annexure 12) reveals that in paragraph 10 of the minutes it was recorded that the Managing Committee had resolved that disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Jamal Asgar. Superintendent of the Arogyshala for his lapses of omissions and commissions regarding purchase of almirahs and illegal appointments be initiated and the Director of the Arogyashala was directed to draw up charge sheet in that behalf and also that the Commissioner and Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar had informed that order has already been issued transferring Dr. Jamal Asgar from the Arogyashala. 21. Jamal Asgar from the Arogyashala. 21. The contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the petitioners could not be transferred on ex-cadre posts even in public interest even assuming to be correct is not sustainable in view of the fact that the Supreme Court in Ramadhar Pandey V/s. State of U.P. and Ors.(supra), held that : ...notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in these Rules, the Governor may in public interest transfer a government servant to a post in another cadre or to an ex-cadre post. The order dated July 8, 1992 does not recite any public interest. We are also not in a position to discover from the other records available before us whether the transfer of the appellant was in public interest. In the absence of a Counter Affidavit or even the relevant records, we are left with no option than to conclude that no public interest is involved. It cannot be gainsaid that transfer is a necessary concomitance of every service; but if such a transfer could be effected only on certain conditions, it is necessary to adhere to those conditions. In this case. the public interest being absent, the impugned order of transfer cannot be supported. However, in the present case from the averments made in the Counter Affidavits filed on behalf of the contesting Respondents it is evident that the Petitioners have been repatriated since their work has not been found upto the mark and for efficient and better management and administration of the affairs of the Arogyashala it is expedient to repatriate the Petitioners working on deputation in the Arogyashala and further from perusal of the order dated 21.3.1997 (Annexure 10 to the Petitioners Supplementary Affidavit dated 8.5.1997) it is evident that the Petitioners have been transferred on administrative grounds so as to enable the Arogyashala to employ persons on various posts keeping in view patients care in the Arogyashala and it has been further explained that as a stop-gap-arrangement private Respondents are being posted on deputation in the Arogyashala so that the patients care is not adversely affected. It therefore cannot be said that the transfer of the petitioners even on ex-cadre posts is not in public interest or that there is no justification to repatriate or transfer the Petitioners. It therefore cannot be said that the transfer of the petitioners even on ex-cadre posts is not in public interest or that there is no justification to repatriate or transfer the Petitioners. There is no dispute that the Petitioners have been continuing in the Arogyashala for over 15 years and it is in the best interest of the Arogyashala that alternative arrangements are made in place of the Petitioners by recruiting persons who are more efficient than the Petitioners and there is nothing wrong in deputing persons to work in place of the Petitioners on deputation in a stop-gap-arrangement so that the care of the inmates is not adversely affected, 22. The Petitioners objection to the order of transfer is primarily on the ground that the same is not in conformity with the instructions of the State Government contained in the letter dated 23.1.1984 (Annexure 1) which at the outset is misconceived inasmuch as the instructions contained in Annexure 1 pertain only in respect of Class III & Class IV employees working in the Malaria Project and is not of general application and therefore no benefit can be derived by the Petitioners from Annexure 1 to object their orders of transfer. 23. As noticed above, it is evident from Annexure 12 that it is the State Government who is competent to transfer the employees working on deputation in the Arogyashala as in the case of Dr. Jamal Asgar, Superintendent of the Arogyashala. 24. in the case of State of M.P. V/s. S.S. Kourav -- . the Supreme Court held that: It is settled law that a transfer which is an incident of service is not to be interfered with by the Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer. It has not been established by the Petitioners that they are not members of transferrable service and cannot be transferred from the Arogyashala when admittedly they are working on deputation in the Arogyashala and thus they have no legal right to insist to continue to work in the Arogyashala irrespective of the decision of the Managing Committee of the Arogyashala to repatriate the Petitioners to their parent Department. 25 On a perusal of the proceedings of the Managing Committee of the Arogyashala (Annexure 12 ) it is evident from Item No. 19 that the next meeting of the Managing Committee was to be held in the first week of February, 1997 and there is neither anything on record nor has any averment been made in the pleadings of the Petitioners that no such meeting had been convened or a Resolution adopted by the Managing Committee for repatriation of the Petitioners to their parent Department. Be that as it may, from the averments made in the Counter Affidavit filed by the Member Secretary, Respondent No. 10 there is sufficient indication to justify the repatriation of the Petitioners to their parent Department. 26. The Contention of Sri Kameshwar Prasad, learned Counsel for the Petitioners that nothing has been said about the employees working in the Arogyashala by the Supreme Court except that they shall be treated as the civil servants of the Government of Bihar on deputation in the Arogyashala and thus in absence of any Rules for transfer/repatriation of the Petitioners i.e. the employed working in the Arogyashala, the State Government or its Officers had no authority in law to transfer them is also not tenable. As noticed above the Petitioners do not claim to be the employees of the Arogyashala but that they are on deputation in the Arogyashala as the employees of the State Government and therefore any objection to their repatriation under the employment of the State Government in different Medical Colleges under the control of the State Government is misconceived. 27. However, the Petitioners in the event they have any grievance against their postings in different Medical Colleges may approach the Secretary cum-Health Commissioner, Government of Bihar but they have no legal right to insist that they can continue to work on various Class III posts in the Arogyashala. 28. In view of the above discussions I am of the opinion that no interference is warranted in the impugned order of transfer/repatriation dated 21.2.1997 (Annexure 3! from the Arogyashala. 28. In view of the above discussions I am of the opinion that no interference is warranted in the impugned order of transfer/repatriation dated 21.2.1997 (Annexure 3! from the Arogyashala. In case the Petitioners join at the respective places of posting in compliance of the order dated 21.2.1997 (Annexure 3) within ten days from today, the State Government and its Officers shall not take any disciplinary action against the Petitioners and it shall be open for the Petitioners to approach the competent authority for regularisation of the period of absence with effect from 14.3.1997 till 19.5.1997 and the Petitioners shall be treated on duty with effect from today. 20th May, 1997 till they report at the respective places of posting but within ten days from today, as prescribed above. 29. In the result the Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations/directions.