Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 464 (JHR)

Sudarshan Prasad v. The State of Jharkhand

2011-06-07

POONAM SRIVASTAV

body2011
Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the respondent -State. 2. The petition is preferred against the office order issued vide Memo No. 1233 dated 24th July, 2006 by the Director, Statistics & Evaluation, Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby, the notification no. 1346 dated 9th October, 2002 stood modified and petitioner's name was removed from the Establishment Committee and two other names of senior officers were added. 3. Learned counsel has lead emphasize on the guideline dealing with the transfer and posting of the Department of Cabinet Secretariat and Coordination Resolution. There is a policy and procedure regarding transfer and posting of the Government servant. The guideline also provides that the Establishment Committee should be formed for each Department with the approval of the Departmental Minister for recommending transfer/posting of such officers whose transfer and posting is made by the Government. It further provides that the Committee shall consist following officers:- (i) Commissioner and Secretary. (ii) Seniormost Head of Department. (iii) One Special Secretary/Additional Secretary. (iv) Suitable seniormost officer of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. 4. The officer concerned is also given liberty that if such a suitable officer of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe is not available in the Department then a suitable officer may be nominated through the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department. 5. In the instant case, it appears that vide Annexure1 to the writ petition the name of the petitioner figured as one of the member of the Committee and the impugned notification was issued modifying the previous notification dated 7th February, 2002. However, the petitioner was replaced by another officer by means of the impugned notification, which is Annexure3 to the writ petition. 6. The State has preferred counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the Director is fully competent to modify the earlier office order. Learned counsel for the State has stated that the Director, Directorate of Statistics and Evaluation (now Directorate of Economics and Statistics) Jharkhand is head of the Directorate and vide notification no. 21795F dated 23rd September, 1960 of Government of Bihar, the Director is vested with the powers of head of the Department, he has the sole charge of the Directorate. 7. However, after taking into consideration the diverse contentions of the counsel, I am of the considered view that this Committee was constituted as an internal arrangement and to meet administrative exigencies. 7. However, after taking into consideration the diverse contentions of the counsel, I am of the considered view that this Committee was constituted as an internal arrangement and to meet administrative exigencies. I am of the considered view that such orders are not amiable to the writ jurisdiction and cannot be questioned under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It does not call for any interference by the High Court. There is yet another circumstance the matter relates to the year 2002, already long period has lapsed and the Committee constituted at the relevant time must have lost its value. The writ petition has died a natural death and calls for no further order. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.