Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1816 (JHR)

Shaikh Manour Ali v. State of Jharkhand

2017-10-30

AMITAV K.GUPTA, D.N.PATEL

body2017
JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 06.01.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge in Contempt Case (Civil) No. 837 of 2016. 2. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that earlier this applicant had preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3559 of 2013, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 04.11.2015. This appellant was appointed as In-charge Head Clerk and he wanted to continue as such. In the said writ petition, it was mentioned that one Shri Kishori Prasad was appointed as In-charge Head Clerk vide order dated 16.04.2013, which was under challenge. The said order was quashed and set aside by the learned Single Judge. 3. It further appears that this appellant was not appointed as In-charge Head Clerk, and therefore, this applicant had preferred Contempt Case (Civil) No. 837 of 2016. In this contempt petition, affidavit was filed by opposite party No. 2, and on the basis of the affidavit, the said contempt petition was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 12.08.2016, because this appellant was appointed as In-charge Head Clerk instead of Shri Kishori Prasad. 4. It further appears from the facts of the case that now this appellant has already been transferred from the office of the Civil Surgeon, Garhwa, to the office of Additional Primary Health Centre, Kharoundha (Majhiyao) in the very same district Gahrwa. Thus vacancy occurs due to transfer of this appellant. It further appears from the facts of the case that some another person is appointed as In-charge Head Clerk in the office of the Civil Surgeon, Garhwa. It appears that this appellant wants to continue as In-charge Head Clerk in the office of the Civil Surgeon, Garhwa. This is not permissible in the eye of law. The Government employee is bound to be transferred in public interest and due to administrative exigencies. In the facts of the present case, transfer is within the same district, from one office to another office. What is lost by this appellant is the In-chargeship from the post of Head Clerk. It may be very valuable for this appellant, but so far as the State is concerned, an employee can be transferred from one office to another office. What is lost by this appellant is the In-chargeship from the post of Head Clerk. It may be very valuable for this appellant, but so far as the State is concerned, an employee can be transferred from one office to another office. At the office of the Civil Surgeon, Garhwa where there is vacancy, now there is bound to be an appointment of the In-charge Head Clerk, and hence, another person is appointed. 5. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Contempt Case (Civil) No. 837 of 2016, order dated 06.01.2017. 6. Hence, there is no substance in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal, and the same is, hereby, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.