Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 163 (PAT)

Khurshid Akram v. State Of Bihar

2004-02-09

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.C. to learned Government Pleader No. II for the State and also Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 4. 2. Initially, this writ application was filed to set aside notification no. 913 (3) dated 23.7.2003 issued by the Revenue Department, Government of Bihar, Patna whereby and whereunder earlier notification no. 869 dated 30.6.2003 has been cancelled. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that notification as contained in Annexure-2 dated 30th June, 2003 whereby and whereunder the petitioner was transferred and posted as Anchal Adhikari, Bahadurpur in the district of Darbhanga has been cancelled and he was directed to join at the Headquarter. It is further submitted that respondent no. 4, however, was made Incharge of several blocks in the district of Darbhanga itself but for the reasons best known to the authorities, the petitioner was directed to join at the Headquarter. It is also submitted that during the pendency of this application, vide notification no. 1364(3) dated 17.12.2003, the petitioner was again transferred and posted as Anchal Adhikari, Dhoraiya in the district of Banka. This order was again modified vide notification no. 1487(3) dated 31.12.2003 and the petitioner was again transferred and posted as Circle Officer, Warisnagar in the district of Samastipur and pursuant to the aforesaid notification, the petitioner, as per direction of the District Magistrate, Samastipur dated 13.1.2004, took over the charge of the Circle Officer, Warisnagar in the district of Samastipur on 14.1.2004 and thereafter the notification as contained in Annexure-13 issued vide Memo No. 72(3) dated 23.1.2004 was again issued cancelling the order of transfer of the petitioner to Warisnagar in the district of Samastipur. In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that frequent orders of transfer issued from time to time within a short span of two months must be held to be arbitrary, unreasonable and wholly without jurisdiction. 4. Initially a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4. Respondent no. 4 is not opposing the prayer of this petitioner. 4. Initially a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent no. 4. Respondent no. 4 is not opposing the prayer of this petitioner. However, the State-respondents in their counter affidavit opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner cannot object the order of transfer at the Headquarter as he was transferred under the guidelines as contained in Rules of Executive Business. 5. This Court, however, vide order dated 17.12.2003 seeing the nature of the prayer of the petitioner, directed the State Counsel to file supplementary counter affidavit explaining circumstances as to under what circumstances respondent no. 4 was made Incharge of several blocks in the district of Darbhanga and the petitioner was being shifted to the Headquarter. No affidavit in this regard has been filed on behalf of the State. I am informed that the post of Circle Officer at Warisnagar in the district of Samastipur is still lying vacant where the petitioner had already joined and taken over the charge. 6. From the materials brought on record, it appears that firstly the petitioner was transferred and posted as Circle Officer. Bahadurpur in the district of Darbhanga vide notification dated 30th June, 2003 and again vide notification dated 27.3.2003 he was directed to join at the Headquarter and even after filing of this writ application, several notifications were issued by the State Government-firstly transferring and posting the petitioner in Dhoraiya Circle in the district of Banka vide notification no. 1364(3) dated 17.12.2003 and again he was shifted to Warisnagar in the district of Samastipur vide notification dated 31.12.2003 and again vide notification dated 23.1.2004 his transfer and posting at Warisnagar has been cancelled meaning thereby that he was brought to the Headquarter again. 7. It is not understandable that once the petitioner was brought to the Headquarter how he was shifted to several places, as referred to above, and since pursuant to the notification dated 31.12.2003, the petitioner took over the charge of Circle Officer at Warisnagar in the district of Samastipur, the same could not have been cancelled bringing him to the Headquarter again. 8. 8. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and seeing attitude of the State-respondents in as much as that the petitioner is being transferred from one place to another within a short span of time, this application is allowed and the order as contained in Annexure-13 issued vide Memo No. 72(3) dated 23.1.2004 is set aside. The arrears of salary of the petitioner if any, must, however, be paid to him within three months. No costs.