Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2 (PAT)

Vijay Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2011-01-03

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2011
JUDGEMENT 1. Present writ application has been filed for quashing the so called Memo No. 3005 dated 16.09.2008 which has been issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Nawadah effecting transfer of the petitioner from his place of posting to Middle School, Garo Bigha.This order of transfer has been further affirmed by the subsequent decision dated 25.07.2009. The said "Decisions are under challenge on various grounds. 2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the District Superintendent of Education has no authority to transfer the petitioner as the power is vested in the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna and that a transfer order cannot be passed as a matter of punishment without any show cause and without any explanation having been sought for from the petitioner on this score. Necessary rules have been produced before the Court along with the decision rendered in the case of Karya Nand Sharma V/s. State of Bihar and others reported in 2010(2) PLJR, 623. 3. Transfer order passed in 2008 cannot be interfered with by this Court at this stage because such an order is not to be examined in isolation in the background under which the earlier litigation came before this Court in relation to this petitioner. Transfer order is the culmination of the orders of this Court in the said background. There were series of allegations and complaints which were made against the petitioners for which disciplinary proceeding was initiated. Such action became subject matter of challenge in C.WJ.C.No. 4174 of 2008. A copy of the said order is annexure-2 to the writ application (wrongly labeled as Annexure-3 at page 17). Matter thereafter traveled to the Division Bench. The Division Bench observed that the matter would be looked into by the District Superintendent of Education, Nawadah as it was an accepted position that he is the disciplinary authority in this regard and the petitioner was to move the said authority and an appropriate speaking order was to be passed. 4. It is in this background that a fresh order reiterating the earlier decision/has been taken by the District Superintendent of Education, Nawadah. This order is annexure-A to the counter affidavit. 5. 4. It is in this background that a fresh order reiterating the earlier decision/has been taken by the District Superintendent of Education, Nawadah. This order is annexure-A to the counter affidavit. 5. In the above stated background and in view of the observation already made by this Court in L.P.A. No. 224 of 2009, an order of transfer can not be dealt with in isolation and the same will have to be adjudicated or looked into in the totality of the facts and circumstances and the dispute which has been going on in this regard. 6. The Court is of the opinion that neither the decision relied upon by the petitioner nor the so called rules will have any application to the present set of facts in the present case in view of annexure-2 and the L.P.A. order which were passed and are on record, the so called impugned orders are the outcome of exercise carried out by the District Superintendent of Education, Nawadah. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed.