Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 745 (JHR)

Narendra Prasad Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2010-07-20

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2010
Order Heard the parties. 2. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the office order dated 23.2.2010 contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, whereby after modifying the earlier office order dated 31.12.2009 (Annexure-2), the petitioner was ordered to be posted at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Central Jail, Hazaribagh and respondent no. 4 Bipin Kumar Sinha was allowed to remain posted at Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi. 3. The petitioner as well as respondent no. 4 both were holding the posts of Assistant Jailors. The petitioner was posted at Central Jail, Dumka whereas respondent no. 4 Bipin Kumar Sinha was posted at Birsa Munda Central Jail Hotwar, Ranchi. By issue of Annexure-2, both of them were promoted to the posts of Jailors on the basis of the recommendation made by the Promotion/Establishment Committee vide office order dated 31.1,2.2009 (Annexure-2). By the said order, the petitioner on being promoted was ordered to be posted as Jailor of Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar at Ranchi whereas respondent no. 4 B.P. Sinha was ordered to be posted as Jailor of Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Central Jail at Hazaribagh. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that only on the next day date, i.e. on 1st January, 2010, another office order was issued staying the promotion/posting order dated 31.12.2009, till further orders. Thereafter, the impugned order contained in Annexure-4 dated 23.2.2010 was issued, whereby, the place of posting of the petitioner as well as respondent no. 4 were inter-changed, i.e. the petitioner was ordered to be sent to Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Central Jail at Hazaribagh whereas respondent no. 4, who was already posted as Assistant Jailor, at Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi, was allowed to remain posted there since he was going to superannuate after about one year. The petitioner challenges the said impugned order, contained in Annexure-4 challenging the place of posting on the ground that though as per the service code if a person is going to retire from service within a period of one year then he may not be transferred but the said provision is not applicable in the case of respondent no. 4 since he was left with the service of about one and half years, i.e. more than a year. 4 since he was left with the service of about one and half years, i.e. more than a year. The petitioner further submits that once the order of place of posting was already issued on the basis of the recommendation of the Promotion/Establishment Committee then the same could not have been changed/altered by issue of the impugned order Annexure-4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order suffers from malice in law. 5. I am not inclined to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that the Promotion/Establishment Committee only considers as to whether the incumbent is entitled to promotion and if it is found that he is fit to be promoted then the recommendation for promotion is made. The Promotion/Establishment Committee does not recommend the place of posting and, therefore, it is for the employer to post the incumbent at a particular place therefore, it cannot be said that the Promotion Committee recommended for posting at a particular place also. It appears that initially the order of place of posting was issued on 31st December, 2009 vide Annexure-2 but the same was stayed just on the next day, i.e. 1st January, 2010 by issue of Annexure-3 and, therefore, before the said order dated 31.12.2009 took its effect, it was stayed and later on an another order, i.e. Annexure-4 was issued by changing the place of posting of the petitioner and also of respondent no. 4. It is the prerogative of the employer to post an officer at a suitable place. No mala fide has been alleged by the petitioner in the change of place of postings. I do not find any malice in law in the present case. 6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, no case of any interference is made out. Accordingly, having found no merit, this writ petition is dismissed.