ORDER : 1. Petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for quashing the Office Order No.36 dated 02.03.2019 (Annexure 3), so far as it relates to the petitioner, wherein the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Junior Engineer, Works Section, Vishnugarh, Hazaribagh to Works Section, Proeyahat, Godda. He has also challenged that part of the same order by which Rajeshwar Prasad Singh (respondent No.4) has been transferred in place of this petitioner. 2. The main contention of the petitioner is that his transfer is premature and is against the policy decision of the Government as contained in Resolution dated 25th October, 1980. 3. The petitioner was appointed on 11.01.1988 as Junior Engineer in the undivided State of Bihar. After the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar, petitioner was allocated the State of Jharkhand. As per the petitioner, he was posted in Hazaribagh district from 13.09.2012. The petitioner was posted in the Works Section, Barhi under Works Division, Hazaribagh, from where he was transferred and posted vide order dated 31.12.2015 to Works Sections, Chainpur under Works Division, Daltonganj as Junior Engineer. The petitioner, again, vide order dated 05.04.2018, was transferred from Works Section, Chainpur to Works Section, Vishnugarh under Works Division, Hazaribagh. At the time of filing of the writ application, he was posted as Junior Engineer, Works Section, Vishnugarh. He was relieved to join at Vishnugarh vide Memo No.886 dated 13.06.2018 and he joined at Vishnugarh on 29.06.2018. Within 9 months from the said transfer order and the order of posting at Vishnugarh, Hazaribagh, the petitioner, vide Office Order No.36 dated 02.03.2019, has been transferred to Works Section, Poreyahat, Godda and one Rajeshwar Prasad Singh has been transferred and posted in place of the petitioner. This order is under challenge in this writ application. 4. State was directed to file counter affidavit in this case. State, in their counter affidavit, has stated that keeping in view the upcoming General Elections to the House of People (Lok Sabha), 2019 and the State Legislative Assemblies of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Odisha and Sikkim, the Election Commission of India, vide letter No. 437/6/1INST/ ECI/FUNCT/MCC/2019 dated 16.01.2019, has directed to follow a consistent policy in relation to transfer and posting with respect to the persons involved directly in elections. The Election Commission of India in the said letter, specifically in Clause 3 thereof, has clearly directed that no Officer connected directly with elections, shall be allowed to continue in the present district of posting if she or he has completed three years in that district during the last 4 (four) years or would be completing three years on or before 31st May, 2019. As per the State, following the said guidelines, the petitioner was transferred as he remained in the district of Hazaribagh for a period of three years, completion period of which falls during last four years. They also submitted that the election work, which was allotted to the petitioner, has now been allotted to Dr. Dayanand. In view of the aforesaid background, it is submitted that there is no error in the order of transfer. 5. Mr. Sumit Gadodia, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the order of transfer is premature. He submits that admittedly within a span of 9 (nine) months, petitioner has been transferred. He submits that as per resolution dated 25.10.1980, posting of a Government Servant at any particular place of posting, should generally be for a period of three years and in some posts it should generally be two years. He submits that this timeframe has not been followed while transferring the petitioner, rendering the transfer invalid. He relies upon a decision of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Uttam Kujur versus State of Jharkhand reported in 2008 (2) JCR 306 (Jhar). He further submits that the guidelines as contained in letter dated 16.01.2019 of the Election Commission of India are not applicable so far as this petitioner is concerned. He submits that admittedly, the petitioner had not remained posted for three years within the last four years from the date of issuance of the guidelines by the Election Commission of India. He submits that the guidelines of the Election Commission of India is dated 16th January 2019 and if the period is calculated properly, then it will be quite clear that from 16th January 2015 (i.e., four years from the date of issuance of the said direction), the petitioner was not posted in Hazaribagh for a period of three years. Thus, contention of the State, taking defence of the aforesaid notification, falls like a pack of cards. Thus, contention of the State, taking defence of the aforesaid notification, falls like a pack of cards. He submits that in view of the aforesaid facts, the writ application is liable to be allowed and the transfer order, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is liable to be set aside. At the time of arguments, Mr. Sumit Gadodia, counsel appearing for the petitioner, also produced the relevant list of dates, which will be referred at appropriate stage. 6. Counsel for the State relies upon the counter affidavit and argues that as per the directions of the Election Commission of India, since the petitioner remained in Hazaribagh district for three years and said period of three years stood completed within the period of last four years from the date of issuance of guidelines dated 16th January, 2019, petitioner had to be transferred and there is no illegality in it. He submits that the judgment of this Hon’ble Court, as relied upon by the petitioner, has got no relevance so far as this particular case is concerned. He lastly submits that the petitioner has already been relieved and the new incumbent has already joined and has taken over the charge. He prays to dismiss this writ application on the aforesaid grounds. 7. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I find that the facts are undisputed. As per the petitioner, he was posted in Hazaribagh from 13.09.2012. On 31.12.2015, he was transferred from Works Section, Barhi under Works Division Hazaribagh (District Hazaribagh) to Works Section, Chanipur, Daltonganj (District Palamau). On 02.02.2016 petitioner was relieved from Hazaribagh for Daltonganj. Vide Office Order dated 05.04.2018, petitioner was transferred from Works Division, Chainpur to Works Division, Vishnugarh in Hazaribagh. On 13.06.2018, petitioner was relieved from the abovementioned post and on 29.06.2018, he joined and started working at Works Section, Vishnugarh in Hazaribagh district. The impugned order of transfer, transferring the petitioner from Hazaribagh to Poreyahat, Godda is dated 02.03.2019. 8. The petitioner claims the transfer to be premature, within 9 (nine) months. He further claims that the guidelines of the Election Commission of India, especially, Clause 3(ii) is not applicable so far as this petitioner is concerned. Thus, the transfer order is bad. The State relies on the aforesaid clause in support of the transfer order. 9. 8. The petitioner claims the transfer to be premature, within 9 (nine) months. He further claims that the guidelines of the Election Commission of India, especially, Clause 3(ii) is not applicable so far as this petitioner is concerned. Thus, the transfer order is bad. The State relies on the aforesaid clause in support of the transfer order. 9. Thus, the bone of contention is whether Clause 3 of the guidelines/letter dated 16th January, 2019 will be applicable in this case or not and what will be the interpretation of Clause 3(ii). 10. Because of ensuing General Election to the House of People (Loksabha), 2019 and other State Assemblies, the Election Commission of India issued a letter to the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories and the Chief Electoral Officers of all the States and Union Territories on 16th January, 2019 communicating their decision that no Officer connected directly with the elections, shall be allowed to continue in the present district of posting if two conditions are fulfilled. It is necessary to quote Clause 3 of the said letter, which is as under: 3. Hence, the Commission has decided that no officer connected directly with elections shall be allowed to continue in the present district of posting:- (i) if she/he is posted in her/his home district. (ii) if she/he has completed three years in that district during last four (4) years or would be completing 3 years on or before 31st May, 2019. 11. It is admitted by both the parties that district Hazaribagh is not the Home District of this petitioner. Thus, Clause 3(i) is not attracted, so far as this petitioner is concerned. The bone of contention is Clause 3(ii). Clause 3(ii) is in two parts, which lays down two conditions with a disjunctive word ‘OR’. The first part provides that if a person has completed three years in that district during last four years, he should not be kept in the said district. The bone of contention is Clause 3(ii). Clause 3(ii) is in two parts, which lays down two conditions with a disjunctive word ‘OR’. The first part provides that if a person has completed three years in that district during last four years, he should not be kept in the said district. The State relies on the aforesaid clause and states that since the petitioner remained in the district of Hazaribagh and the period of three years got completed during last four years from the date of issuance of these guidelines, petitioner had to be moved out, to which the counsel for the petitioner tried to impress that he has not remained in the district of Hazaribagh for a period of three years within last four years. 12. Upon reading the aforesaid clause, I find that if a person has completed three years in the district during last four years, he has to be moved out. This means that during the period of last four years, from the date of issuance of the said guidelines, if a person has completed three years in a particular district, he has to be moved out. It is not the case where a person has to remain in the district for three years within the period of last four years from the date of issuance of the guidelines. Thus, the word used is during and not within. This is not a case where a person is kept posted and completed three years within the period of four years would be transferred, rather, it is the date of completion of three year period of posting, which should fall during the period of past four years from 16th January, 2019, which will call for his transfer. 13. Thus, from the circular / guidelines, it is clear that if a person remained posted and has completed three years during the last four years from 16th January 2019, he has to be transferred. If the date of completion of three years shall fall anytime during the last four years of issuance of the notification, he has to be transferred. 14. Now, it is to be seen whether the date of completion of petitioner’s stay of three years in Hazaribagh falls during last four years from the date of issuance of the guidelines. The four years period for this purpose would be 17th January 2015 to 16th January 2019. 14. Now, it is to be seen whether the date of completion of petitioner’s stay of three years in Hazaribagh falls during last four years from the date of issuance of the guidelines. The four years period for this purpose would be 17th January 2015 to 16th January 2019. From the dates mentioned in para 7 above, I find that from 13.09.2012 to 02.02.2016, the petitioner was in Hazaribagh. The petitioner was posted in Hazaribagh on 13.09.2012. He completed three years of his posting in Hazaribagh on 12.09.2015, i.e., during the period of last four years from the date of issuance of the guidelines/letter. Thus, I find that the date of completion of three years in the district of Hazaribagh during last four years from the date of issuance of the said guidelines/letter dated 16th January, 2019, is within the span of four years. Since the date of completion of three years of posting in the district of Hazaribagh falls during the last four years, I find that the case of the petitioner is governed by Clause 3(ii) of the guidelines/letter dated 16.01.2019. As the case of the petitioner falls within the said guidelines, no fault can be found with the respondents in transferring the petitioner from Hazaribagh. The petitioner was thus correctly transferred by the respondents. 15. Further, the judgment cited by the petitioner is not applicable so far as the facts of this case are concerned. 16. Thus this writ petition lacks merit. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.