Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 834 (JHR)

Meena Kumari Rai v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-05-08

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2017
JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. – Aggrieved of order of transfer contained in Notification dated 15.03.2017, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Noticing a possible complication on account of relieving of the petitioner from her place of posting and charge taken by the respondent No. 3, an order in the nature of status quo was passed on 18.04.2017, and the respondent State was directed to file a counter affidavit, however, no affidavit in opposition has been filed by the respondent State. 3. The learned State counsel states that she has received instructions in the matter, a copy of which has been tendered. 4. Taken on record. 5. Be tagged. 6. Referring to Rule 59 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 and a decision in "K.C. Sinha v. State of Bihar through the Additional Secretary & Ors." reported in (1985) PLJR 868 , Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has endeavoured to establish that to accommodate a favourite, the petitioner has been transferred vide impugned Notification dated 15.03.2017, however, without any posting. 7. The learned State counsel opposes the writ petition contending that the order of transfer has been issued in administrative exigencies and on complaints of nonperformance of the petitioner. 8. The petitioner claims that she is an appointee from 33rd batch of Bihar Public Service Commission and she was appointed w.e.f. 08.12.1988 in the cadre of Bihar Education Service Class-II. Prior to her transfer as District Education Officer, Palamau vide Notification dated 29.06.2016, she was posted as Principal, Government Girls''+2 High School, Dalttonganj. The petitioner has been transferred from the said post and directed to give her joining in the headquarters. Admittedly, no place of posting has been given to the petitioner. In place of the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 who is holding the post of Regional Deputy Director of Education, Palamau Division has been directed to assume the charge. This is also not disputed that in place of the petitioner another District Education Officer has not been posted. It is stated that there were complaints against the petitioner from the senior officers. The petitioner was not taking interest in the departmental work and in the departmental review meetings her work has not been found satisfactory. 9. Evidently, the ground for transfer of the petitioner appears to be amazing and extraordinary. It is stated that there were complaints against the petitioner from the senior officers. The petitioner was not taking interest in the departmental work and in the departmental review meetings her work has not been found satisfactory. 9. Evidently, the ground for transfer of the petitioner appears to be amazing and extraordinary. How by transferring the petitioner to other place it can be ensured that she may start taking interest in the departmental work, is anybody''s guess. No show-cause notice has been issued nor any proceeding on the alleged complaints has been initiated against the petitioner. Transfer of the petitioner does not appear to be in exigencies of the work. For nonperformance of the petitioner, transfer may not be the only solution. The petitioner has put in about 30 years of service. She is a single lady, looking after her mother. Her transfer in quick succession would definitely cause dislocation and harassment to her. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts, transfer of the petitioner vide Notification dated 15.03.2017 is quashed. The petitioner shall assume charge at her previous place of posting. It is made clear that any controversy in respect of relieving and taking over of the charge shall set at rest by this order. The petitioner shall duly draw her salary for the period after her transfer vide Notification dated 15.03.2017. 11. The writ petition stands allowed.