Judgment 1. Petitioner is a Typist-cum-Clerk and was posted in the Market Committee, Naugachia. By order dated 27.2.2003 (Annexure-8) he was transferred from there to the office of the Regional Director, Agriculture Marketing, Muzaffarpur. In the light of the said order by communication dated 27.8.2003 (Annexure-7) the Secretary of the Market Committee, Naugachia directed the petitioner to hand over the chajge by 31.8.2003 so that he can be relieved on 1.9.2003 to join the transferred place. Ultimately by order 1.9.2003 (Annexure-9) petitioner has been relieved to join in the office of the Regional Director, Muzaffarpur. 2. In this writ application, prayer of the petitioner is to quash the aforesaid orders. 3. Mr. Rajendra Narain appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the terms and conditions of service of Secretary and staff of Market Committee has been provided under Rule 64 of the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Rules, 1975 (for short the Rules). He submits that in view of Rule 64(ii)(c) an employee of the market committee can be transferred from one Committee to another. But in the present case petitioner has not been transferred to any another Committee but in the office of the Regional Director, Muzaffarpur which is illegal. Rule 64(ii)(c) of the Rules reads as follows : "64. Terms and conditions of service of Secretary and staff of Market Committee XX XX XX (ii)(a) The Market Committee may employ such other officers and servants as may be necessary for its proper and efficient working. (b) Such officers and servants shall be divided into superior and inferior classes. "(c) The category, number of posts in each category and terms and conditions of service of staff and servants ot the Market Committee may be determined by the Market Committee with the approval of the Board and such stafi and servant shall function under overall control and superintendence of the Board and shall be transferable from one Committee to other within the State." 4. Mr. Mr. K.P. Yadav appearing on behalt of the respondents however submits that the Governor of Bihar in exercise of powers conferred on him, by notification dated 20.9.1996 substituted the said Rule in the following terms : "Rule 64(ii) (a) to (e)By deleting parts (a) to (e) of sub-rule (ii) of Rule 64, the following shall be substituted : "The Board shall appoint such officers and staff which are necessary fc proper and efficient working of the Cor mittees". 5. Mr. Narayan submits that by deleting the rule provided for transfer of an employee from one Market Committee to another the respondents had created further problem for themselves as after the deletion of the said rule no provision exists for transfer of an employee at all. Mr. Yadav however submits that Section 33A the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Act confers the power of superintendence and control over the Market Committee on the Bihar Agriculture Marketing Board and in exercise ot I the powers so conferred the Board has r authority to transfer an employee from one place to another. In answer thereto Mr. Narain further contends that the power of superintendence and control to the Board shall not extend to the power of transfer of an employee. 6. In view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dhirendra I Kumar Akela vs. The Bihar State Agri-1 culture Marketing Board and others 1984 P.LJ.R. 974) this question does not need any detailed discussion. The Full Bench on consideration of the said provision has held as follows : "It seems to be plain from this catena of cases that the final court has now unhesitatingly held that the word "control" carries within its wide sweep the power to transfer an employee from one place to another. In face of this binding precedent it seems to be somewhat vain now to contend that this power would lie beyond the jurisdiction of the controlling authority." (Underlining mine) 7 In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Narayan. 8. Mr. Narayan then projects the personal problem of the petitioner. I am of the opinion that such problem is to be looked into by the employer itself..Petitioner, if so advised, may file representation against the order of transfer. 9. Narayan. 8. Mr. Narayan then projects the personal problem of the petitioner. I am of the opinion that such problem is to be looked into by the employer itself..Petitioner, if so advised, may file representation against the order of transfer. 9. Needless to state that in case such a representation is filed, the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with : law. 10. In the result, I do not find any merit in the application and it is dismissed accordingly with the observation aforesaid.