Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 739 (JHR)

Ramashish Raut v. State of Jharkhand

2010-07-19

R.R.PRASAD

body2010
Order The petitioners have challenged the order as contained in Memo No. 88 dated 2.2.2009 (Annexure-7) whereby services of the petitioners, who were on deputation to the Transport Department, have been sent back to the parent department. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that while the petitioners were functioning as Deputy Superintendent of Police, their services were placed with the Transport Department to be posted as Enforcement Officer, vide order as contained in Memo No. 3169 dated 3.7.2008 (Annexure-1). Pursuant to that, parent department of the petitioners, i.e. Home Department issued a notification as contained in Memo No.166 dated 3.7.2008 by which petitioners were relieved for giving joining in the Transport Department. Accordingly, petitioners no.1 and 2 gave their joining in the Transport Department on 7.7.2008 and 9.7.2008 respectively. After waiting for posting for number of months, the petitioner nO.1 was posted as Enforcement Officer, Ranchi Zone and was also given additional charge of Jamshedpur Zone, vide order as contained in Memo NO.1229 dated 22.11.2008 (Annexure-4). On the same day, the petitioner nO.1 gave his joining by virtue of the said notification issued on 22.11.2008 whereas the petitioner no. 2 joined as Enforcement Officer on 24.11.2008 at Hazaribagh Zone but only after two months, the services of the petitioners were returned to their parent department, vide order as contained in letter no. 88 dated 2.2.2009 (Annexure-7) which has been sought to be quashed. 3. Assailing the said order, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that under the policy with respect to transfer and posting, as notified by the Government on 25.10.1980, as has been annexed as Annexure-8, duration of posting has been stipulated normally for a period of three years and in some cases two years but in complete violation of the said policy petitioners' services were sent back to parent department after two months. 4. 4. Learned counsel by referring to Annexure-9 submitted that Transport Department has also issued letter on 15.6.2001 whereby it has been stipulated that the period of deputation should be initially for two years and if the services is found satisfactory, the tenure can be extended for further two years but the respondents ignoring the policy decision of the Government, transferred the petitioners only after two months of taking over the charge as Enforcement Officer which is quite illegal as transfer of officer is required to be effected on the basis of the set norms or guidelines and that power of transferring an officer cannot be wielded arbitrary, mala fide and without there being any reason. 5. Learned counsel in support of his submission has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Uttam Kujur vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [ 2008(2) J.C.R. 306 (Jhr.)] holding therein that 'he Government has come up with a transfer policy and has prescribed procedure regulating transfer and posting of its employees and, therefore, if the Government by deviating from the set norms effects the transfer, there should be a valid reason. Thus, in the light of the said policy decision of the Government, the impugned order (Annexure-7) under which the petitioners' services have been returned to their parent department is fit to be set aside. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed wherein it has been stated that the Transport Department which generates revenue is manned by the officers deputed by the Home Department for augmenting the income of the department but when it was found that revenue collection is having downward trend, a decision was taken to return the services of all the persons to the parent department in the interest of the State. The said decision was never objected too by the Home Department, rather the Home Department have already deputed other persons in place of the petitioners, vide notification no. 695 dated 18.2.2009 and that the petitioners had never been deputed with any fixed period, rather they had been deputed till further orders and in that view of the matter, the petitioners cannot claim any fixed tenure in the deputed post. Under this situation, this writ application is fit to be dismissed. 7. 695 dated 18.2.2009 and that the petitioners had never been deputed with any fixed period, rather they had been deputed till further orders and in that view of the matter, the petitioners cannot claim any fixed tenure in the deputed post. Under this situation, this writ application is fit to be dismissed. 7. It be stated that transfer/deputation is an incident of service and no public servant has a right to continue at a particular place or post and it is the sole prerogative of the State Government i.e. employer to transfer a Government servant and unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision or passed by an authority not competent to do so, the order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course. This proposition has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of State of U.P vs. Gobardhan Lal [ (2004)11 SCC 402 ]. 8. Looking to the case .in the background of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it be stated that there are no statutory rules framed under proviso to Article 309 regulating the transfer and posting of Government servant in the State of Jharkhand. However, the State Government, vide its resolution dated. 25.10.1980 has laid down a transfer policy and has also prescribed the procedure. Thus, in absence of any statutory rule, the guidelines regulate the transfer and posting of the Government servant. Looking to the said resolution as contained in Annexure-B, one would find that duration of posting on any post and at any particular place has been stipulated generally for a period of three years, in some cases it may be two years. But in that resolution nothing has been said about the period of duration. However, attention has been drawn to a letter written by the Transport Commissioner to the Deputy Secretary, Home (Police) Department wherein it has been suggested that, the person who be deputed to the Transport Department should have two years of tenure but that letter cannot take place of a general policy as in the case of resolution dated 25.10.2008. However, attention has been drawn to a letter written by the Transport Commissioner to the Deputy Secretary, Home (Police) Department wherein it has been suggested that, the person who be deputed to the Transport Department should have two years of tenure but that letter cannot take place of a general policy as in the case of resolution dated 25.10.2008. Thus, it will have no force at all and therefore, the petitioners cannot derive any benefit out of it, particularly when they had never been deputed for two years, rather they had been deputed to the post of Enforcement Officer till further orders and when, according to the statement made in the counter affidavit, the petitioners and other Enforcement Officer failed to achieve target in collecting revenue, all of them have been repatriated to the parent department. 9. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the order under which services of the petitioners have been sent back to the. parent department and as such, it needs no interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, this writ application stands dismissed.