JUDGMENT : SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J. 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 10 of the LETTERS PATENT against the judgment dated 15.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6693 of 2023 whereby and whereunder, the prayer of the writ petitioner for quashing of the notification bearing F. No. RCD-1-Establishment-04/2018-3981(S), Ranchi dated 17.08.2023 of Road Construction Department (Annexure-17) by which the services of the writ petitioner have been taken back from the Rural Works Department and he has been posted as Engineer-in-Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department (Vigilance Wing), Jharkhand, Ranchi, has been allowed. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the plaint is required to enumerated herein which reads as under: On 16.06.1987, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer and was substantially promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 15.06.1995. The petitioner claimed to be eligible for promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer in the year 2001 but was promoted on 08.07.2014. As the issue of promotion was not considered for years and the petitioner was rendering service on the higher post on officiating basis, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(S) No.415 of 2015 claiming pay and allowance for service rendered by him on higher post on officiating basis and also prayed for consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer/Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary. The writ petition was disposed of on 22.07.2015 directing the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law after due scrutiny of the relevant records with an observation that the case of the petitioner for promotion would depend upon consideration of all the eligible persons upon availability of vacancy in the respective category. However, the grievance of the petitioner was not redressed. The petitioner filed another writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1054 of 2019. An order dated 11.07.2019 was passed in W.P.(S) No.1054 of 2019 and then vide notification dated 05.11.2019, read with corrigendum notification dated 13.11.2019, the petitioner was granted regular promotion to the post of Chief Engineer with effect from 24.12.2018. The petitioner claimed that he was eligible for further promotion to the rank of Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary and vacant sanctioned post was available, therefore, he filed representation for consideration of his case for promotion. The petitioner claimed that he was eligible for further promotion to the rank of Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary and vacant sanctioned post was available, therefore, he filed representation for consideration of his case for promotion. A meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as "the DPC") was held and the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Engineer-in-Chief vide notification dated 08.07.2020 from the date of assuming the charge although the petitioner claimed promotion to the cadre post of Engineer-In-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary. The said action of the respondents was challenged by the petitioner in another writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2327 of 2020 for promotion on the sanctioned post of nomenclature as Engineer-In-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary from the due date. During the pendency of W.P.(S) No.2327 of 2020, a DPC was held wherein it was discussed that as per the aforesaid Rules of 2016, Rule 7 read with Schedule II, the next promotional post is Engineer-in-chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary. In this connection, it was informed by the Road Construction Department that from undivided State of Bihar a post of Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary was received by the Road Construction Department by way of transfer to the State of Jharkhand. It was discussed that thereafter the Rural Development Department, Jharkhand issued a letter no.3275 dated 14.08.2001 and a separate post namely, Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary was sanctioned and created in the department. It has also been recorded that even the Building Construction Department, Jharkhand Ranchi had sanctioned and created the said post vide letter no.654 dated 17.03.2006 and thus, it was also observed that the said post of Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary is a sanctioned post under the Road Construction Department. It has also been recorded that even the Building Construction Department, Jharkhand Ranchi had sanctioned and created the said post vide letter no.654 dated 17.03.2006 and thus, it was also observed that the said post of Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary is a sanctioned post under the Road Construction Department. In the aforesaid background, consultation was also made with the Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department of the State of Jharkhand and it was confirmed that under the Rule 15 of the Rules of 2016, the said post namely Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary is a sanctioned post for promotion and steps can be taken for promotion in terms of Rule 7(IV), , and consequently, inter alia following decision was taken in the Departmental Promotion Committee Meeting dated 18.11.2020: The error made in Notification dated 08.07.2020 by which the petitioner was promoted to in post of Engineer-in-Chief was to be corrected and the petitioner was to be promoted to the post of Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary and consequently, the Notification dated 08.07.2020 promoting the petitioner as Engineer-in-Chief be modified and his date of promotion to Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary be also shifted back to 24.12.2019. The said decision was taken in terms of Rule 7 Schedule II of the Rules of 2016 governing the petitioner. The writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2327 of 2020 was disposed of on 17.02.2021 with a direction to the respondent nos.1, 3, and 4 to issue notification in view of the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 18.11.2020 within a period of 6 weeks. As the order dated 17.02.2021 passed in W.P.(S) No.2327 of 2020 was not complied, the petitioner filed Contempt Case (Civil) No.738 of 2021 and vide order dated 03.12.2021, the opposite parties were directed to file show cause, and immediately thereafter on 08.12.2021, the petitioner was transferred (without posting) to Rural Works Department (Jharkhand), and at the same time, one Jai Prakash Singh of rank lower to the petitioner holding substantive post of Superintending Engineer was transferred and posted as the officiating Engineer-in-Chief in place of the petitioner, though he was allegedly ineligible to hold the higher post of Engineer-in-Chief even on officiating basis. However, the petitioner submitted his joining in the Rural Works Department and requested for being given the post. However, the petitioner submitted his joining in the Rural Works Department and requested for being given the post. Order dated 11.02.2022 was passed in Contempt Case (Civil) No. 738 of 2021 recording that a show-cause was filed stating that due to some inadvertent reasons opposite party was unable to comply the order and this Court observed that the show-cause filed by the O.P. No. 3 clearly shows that how the opposite parties were trying to play with the order of this Court and this Court issued notice upon opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in terms of Rule 393 of High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 and the matter was directed to be posted on 25.02.2022. Prior to the next date in the contempt proceedings, a notification dated 23.02.2022 was issued by the Road Construction Department, whereby the earlier notification dated 08.07.2020 was partly modified and the petitioner was granted promotion to the cadre post of Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary with retrospective effect from 24.12.2019 with all consequential benefits, relaxing the provisions of Rule 74 of Jharkhand Financial Rules and Rule 58A of Jharkhand Service Code. In spite of the notification dated 23.02.2022, no order of posting was issued with regard to the petitioner, and thereafter, the concerned authorities including the Chief Secretary of the State of Jharkhand were summoned for personal appearance in the contempt proceeding, and it was submitted before this Court that the posting of the petitioner shall be taken care of. In view of such submissions, the contempt case was dropped vide order dated 11.03.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner was posted as Engineer-in-Chief-cum Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary in the Rural Works Department, Jharkhand Ranchi, and not in the Cadre Controlling Department, namely, Road Construction Department. This was done in spite of the fact that there was no other officer available in the engineering cadre who was promoted to the cadre post of Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum Special Secretary on regular basis since the creation of the State of Jharkhand. Thereafter, vide impugned notification dated 17.08.2023, the Road Construction Department recalled the services of the petitioner and posted the petitioner on the post of Engineer-in Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi, until further orders, which as per the petitioner is a post previously filled by officers of the rank and status of Superintending Engineer/Chief Engineer, mostly on officiating basis. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 17.08.2023 the writ petitioner (respondent herein) has preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) 6693 of 2023. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, has allowed the writ petition vide order dated 15.07.2024, and set aside the impugned notification bearing F. No. RCD-1- Establishment 04/2018-3981(S), Ranchi dated 17.08.2023, decision dated 26.02.2024 by which the statutory cadre post of Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary has been held to be equivalent to the ex-cadre post of Engineer-in-Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department and the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand is directed to take a decision with regard to the petitioner in connection with his posting as Engineer -in-Chief-Cum- Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary within 15days. The respondent state (appellant herein) is being aggrieved by this impugned judgment has preferred present LETTERS PATENT appeal. 3. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner (respondent herein) being aggrieved with the issuance of a notification bearing F. No. RCD-1-Establishment-04/2018- 3981(S) Ranchi dated 17.08.2023 (hereinafter referred as Notification dated 17.08.2023) by which he has been posted in ex-cadre post of Engineer-in-Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department (Vigilance Wing) as also the decision dated 26.02.2024 by which the statutory cadre post of Engineer-in-Chief, Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary has been held to be equivalent to the ex-cadre post of Engineer-in-Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department (Vigilance Wing), has approached this Court challenging both the notifications issued by the State Government. 4. The learned Single Judge disagreeing with the ground taken by the State has passed the order by allowing the writ petition by quashing and setting aside Notification dated 17.08.2023 which is the subject-matter of the instant appeal. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/ state: 5. The learned Advocate General appearing for the State has taken the following ground in assailing the impugned judgment: (i) That the issuance of notifications, as has been impugned, is by way of routine transfer made in the public interest. (ii) The ground has been taken that the petitioner has been transferred in the administrative exigency, equivalent to the post which he was holding prior to his post of Engineer-in-Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department. (ii) The ground has been taken that the petitioner has been transferred in the administrative exigency, equivalent to the post which he was holding prior to his post of Engineer-in-Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department. (iii) It is submitted that when an incumbent is posted in the concerned department in Public Works Department, he is known as Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary and when he is posted in the Vigilance Department, he is known as Engineer-in Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat, Vigilance Department (Vigilance Wing), Jharkhand, and therefore, the posting of the petitioner who was promoted as Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary in the Road Construction department to the post of Engineer-in-Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat, Vigilance Department (Vigilance Wing), Jharkhand, is at equivalent post. (iv) It has been submitted that the petitioner, being the public servant is having no enforceable right to be made in the particular post or department. (v) The ground has been taken that the petitioner while working as Engineer-in-Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat, Vigilance Department (Vigilance Wing), Jharkhand, will have supervision by way of random inspection over all the Public Works Departments in connection with quality of execution, timely completion of work, etc. and if posted as Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary in one or the other works department including Road Construction Department, he would have control over only one such department. Therefore, the post of Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary is in no way less in rank and responsibilities compared to the post of Engineer-in-Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat, Vigilance Department (Vigilance Wing), Jharkhand. In order to bring home the work and responsibilities of the petitioner while working as Engineer-in-Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat, Vigilance Department (Vigilance Wing), Jharkhand, reference has been made to the Resolution dated 05.07.2002 by which the post was created. He submits that as per impugned order, the pay scale is the same. (vi) The said notification, as contained in Circular dated 05.07.2002 has not been challenged and therefore the same is in existence and even the same has not been challenged and so long as the resolution dated 05.07.2002 is in existence, the posting of writ petitioner to the post of Engineer-in-Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat, Vigilance Department (Vigilance Wing), cannot be said to be unjust and improper, rather the same will be treated to be in the administrative exigency. (vii) The petitioner has already retired from service and he is getting pension without any detriment to the interest and as such, as of now whatever relief has been sought for, has lost its force. (viii) The argument has been advanced that even though the learned Single Judge has come out with the observation that the point of equivalence is essentially within the domain of the respondents(appellant herein) but even then, the notification dated 17.08.2023 and 26.02.2024 have been quashed and set aside without giving the conclusive finding that whether the post of Engineer-in-Chief, Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary is equivalent to the cadre post of Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department (Vigilance Wing) and as such, on this ground alone, the impugned judgment needs interference. (ix) The Hon'ble Single Judge has erroneously placed reliance upon the Jharkhand Engineering Service Recruitment Rules, 2016, as it is respectfully submitted that the operative legal framework governing service conditions and cadre structure underwent a significant change pursuant to the decision of the State Government, as reflected in Departmental Resolution No. 933(5) dated 07.03.2022, whereby the operation of the Jharkhand Engineering Service Recruitment Rules, 2016 has been kept in abeyance. 6. Learned State counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has submitted that the learned Single Judge without taking into consideration the resolution dated 05.07.2002 since has passed an order holding the notification dated 17.08.2023 to be improper and illegal and as such, the impugned judgment passed by learned Single Judge suffers from an error and hence is fit to be set aside. Submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent: 7. Per Contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has taken the following grounds in defending the impugned judgment: (i) The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the vital aspect of the matter that the Resolution dated 05.07.2002 neither expressly nor by necessary implication and in fact nowhere states that the Statutory Cadre Post is equivalent to the post of Engineer-in-Chief. (ii) It has further been submitted that from perusal of the Resolution dated 05.07.2002 issued by the Cabinet (Vigilance) department, it would be evident that it was issued having been felt expedient by the State Government to create a fresh Technical Examiner Cell under the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department. Consequently, the resolution sanctioned the specified posts and authorized expenditure for the same. Consequently, the resolution sanctioned the specified posts and authorized expenditure for the same. Thus, by the Resolution dated 05.07.2002, it cannot be said that the Statutory Cadre Post of Engineer-in- Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner cum-Special Secretary and the post of Engineer-in-Chief in Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department (Vigilance Wing), Jharkhand have been declared to be equivalent posts in terms of status, functions and duties. (iii) It has been argued that in the Rules of 2016, there is a post of Chief Engineer, but there is no post of Engineer-in-Chief and there is separate post namely Engineer-in-Chief, Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary. (iv) It has been submitted that the Resolution dated 05.07.2002 neither expressly nor by necessary implication and in fact nowhere states that the Statutory Cadre Post is equivalent to the post of Engineer-in-Chief though the nomenclature of the Statutory Cadre Post stood conferred way back in 1974 and 1981 vide Governmental Orders dated 14.03.1974 and 14.04.1981, which is much prior to the Resolution dated 05.07.2002. (v) The argument has been advanced that the Resolution dated 05.07.2002 insofar as it pertains to the post of Engineer-in-Chief, is ex-facie arbitrary and unsustainable as no post by the nomenclature Engineer-in-Chief simpliciter exists under the 2016 Rule as shall be manifest from a mere perusal of Rule 3 read with Schedule 1 of the 2016 Rules. 8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, based upon the aforesaid, has submitted that the learned Single Judge since has passed the impugned judgment by taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, hence, the impugned judgment suffers from no error, as such, requires no interference. Analysis: 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the pleading made in the writ petition, as has been incorporated in the memo of appeal as also the impugned judgment. 10. At the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner (respondent herein) was primarily aggrieved by the notification of Road Construction Department dated 17th August 2023, by which his services were taken back from Rural Works Department till further orders, and he was posted on the post of Engineer-in-Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department (Vigilance Wing), Jharkhand, Ranchi. Admittedly, the petitioner was promoted as Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary vide notification dated 23.02.2022, and his grievance is that by posting him as Engineer-in-Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department (Vigilance Wing), the petitioner has been reduced in rank. 11. It requires to refer herein that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents have taken a decision vide order 26.02.2024, stating that the post of Engineer-In-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary and the post of Engineer-in-Chief, are equivalent as they have the same pay scale. While taking such a decision, a reference has been made to Resolution No.412 dated 05.07.2002. 12. Consequently, the petitioner has challenged the said decision dated 26.02.2024 and sought a further declaration by seeking amendment to the writ petition. The petition seeking amendment was allowed by the learned writ Court vide order dated 04.04.2024 and directed to be treated as a part of the main writ petition. 13. It is evident from the impugned judgment that the learned Single has formulated the following issues: (a) Whether the part of the Resolution bearing No.41/2001, 412/Ni dated 05.07.2002 of the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, which provides for the post of Engineer-in-Chief, is relatable to the Statutory Cadre Post of Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, having not been specifically included in the said resolution dated 05.07.2002? As a sequel to the aforesaid issue, whether the impugned decision justifying the posting of the petitioner by referring to the Resolution bearing No.41/2001, 412/Ni dated 05.07.2002 of the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department is sustainable in law? (b) Whether the impugned decision dated 26.02.2024, holding that the post of Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary to which the petitioner was promoted and the post of Engineer-in-Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department (Vigilance Wing), Jharkhand are equivalent, is sustainable in law? (c) Whether the posting of the Petitioner as Engineer-in-Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat, and Vigilance Department (Vigilance Wing) Jharkhand, Ranchi amounts to reduction in rank compared to the rank and position of the Petitioner in the capacity of Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary? (c) Whether the posting of the Petitioner as Engineer-in-Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat, and Vigilance Department (Vigilance Wing) Jharkhand, Ranchi amounts to reduction in rank compared to the rank and position of the Petitioner in the capacity of Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary? (d) Given the fact that there are three sanctioned cadre posts of Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner -cum Special Secretary, whether the respondents are justified in shifting and posting the petitioner in the ex-cadre post as Engineer-in-Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department (Vigilance Wing), Jharkhand, and filling the three sanctioned posts by way of officiating arrangement from amongst the persons much lower in the cadre? (e) Whether the impugned action of the respondents is a result of malice on account of the petitioner having filed writ petitions and contempt petition to secure his right for consideration of promotion and correct designation upon promotion to the highest cadre post in the Road Construction Department and thereby deprived the petitioner of post, rank, and status of Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary? 14. The learned writ Court after taking into consideration the contention as raised by the learned counsel for the parties has allowed the writ petition by giving some observation in paragraph 58 of the impugned order, for ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under: 58. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings in connection with regards to issue no (a) to (e):- I. The impugned notification bearing F. No. RCD-1 Establishment04/2018-3981(S), Ranchi dated 17.08.2023 (Annexure-17) by which the petitioner has been posted in ex cadre post of Engineer-in-Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department (Vigilance Wing) is set aside. II. The decision dated 26.02.2024 by which the statutory cadre post of Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary has been held to be equivalent to the ex-cadre post of Engineer-in-Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department (Vigilance Wing) is set-aside. III. Consequently, the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand is directed to take a decision with regard to the petitioner in connection with his posting as Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary within 15 days from the date of communication of this judgment.” 15. III. Consequently, the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand is directed to take a decision with regard to the petitioner in connection with his posting as Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary within 15 days from the date of communication of this judgment.” 15. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual aspect and rival contentions, the question which requires consideration in the instant appeal are as follows: (i) As to whether the finding given by the learned Single Judge with respect to the status which has been given to the respondent-writ petitioner in view of the resolution dated 05.07.2002 to the post of Engineer-in-Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department (Vigilance Wing) can be said to be justified; (ii) As to whether the post of Technical Examiner, as per the resolution dated 05.07.2002 having the same pay-scale as that of the post of Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary can be said to be reduction in the post amounting to reversion? (iii) Whether judicial review can be extended to administrative determination of post equivalence absent arbitrariness, malafides, or statutory infraction. (iv) Whether a government servant has any enforceable right to remain posted at particular post or department. 16. This Court before considering the aforesaid issues needs to refer herein the relevant rules which has got bearing in the present case.. For ready reference the same is quoted herein-below: BIHAR ENGINEERING SERVICE RULES , 1939 2 (f) "superior post" means the post of Chief Engineer, Deputy Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineer, Executive Engineer, Undersecretary to the Provincial Government in the Public Works Department and such other posts as may be specially classed as superior by the Governor. 3. Strength of cadre.- The sanctioned strength of the service shall be as follows:- Permanent Temporary Chief Engineer 1 … Deputy Chief Engineer … 1 Superintending Engineers 4 6 Executive Engineers including Under Secretary 21 17 Total 26 24 Provided that (a) the Governor may leave unfilled or hold in abeyance post, without thereby entitling any member of the service to compensation, and may increase or decrease the cadre by creating or reducing permanent or temporary posts from time to time, as may be found necessary; and 17. The provision as contained in Jharkhand Public Works Department Code, 2012 needs to be referred herein. For ready reference, the same is being quoted hereinunder: “6. The provision as contained in Jharkhand Public Works Department Code, 2012 needs to be referred herein. For ready reference, the same is being quoted hereinunder: “6. The following are the Name and designation of posts of The Jharkhand Engineering Service, Class I & II:- (a) Class I Name and designation of posts- Engineer-in-Chief, Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineer Executive Engineer, (a) Class II (b) Name and designation of post - (c) Assistant Engineer” Duties of Officers of the Public Works Department I - Engineer -in-Chief 15. The Engineer-in-Chief is the administrative and professional head of that branch of the Public Works Department of which he is in charge, and is responsible for the proper and efficient working of 15A. It is the duty of the Engineer -in-Chief to recommend to Government all matters relating to provision of, transfers, postings, punitive action, award etc. of Chief Engineer, Superintending, Executive and Assistant Engineers. He has full powers of transfer of Junior Engineer, non-gazetted staff, ministerial and menial, from one wing to another. 15B. It will be the duty of Engineer-in-Chief to see that the budget allotment for the year are fully spent, in so far as is consistent with general economy and prevent large expenditure in the last month of the year for the sole purpose of avoiding lapses. He will be responsible for ensuring that any money which is not likely to be needed during the year is promptly surrendered, so as to allow its re-appropriation for other purposes by the department. Note - Powers and Duties of Engineer-in-Chief will be vested In the Chief Engineer where he is the administrative and professional head of a branch of Public Works Department II - Chief Engineer 15C. The Chief Engineer is the administrative and professional head of the wing of the Public Works Department of which he is in charge, and is responsible to the Government for the proper and efficient working of that wing. 16. It is the duty of the Chief Engineer to recommend to Engineer-in-Chief all matters relating to transfers, postings, punitive actions, awards etc of Superintending Engineers, Executive Engineers, Assistant Engineers and junior Engineer. He has full powers of transfer of Junior Engineers, non-gazetted staff, ministerial and menial, from one circle of superintendence to another. 17. 16. It is the duty of the Chief Engineer to recommend to Engineer-in-Chief all matters relating to transfers, postings, punitive actions, awards etc of Superintending Engineers, Executive Engineers, Assistant Engineers and junior Engineer. He has full powers of transfer of Junior Engineers, non-gazetted staff, ministerial and menial, from one circle of superintendence to another. 17. The Chief Engineer will exercise a concurrent control with the Accountant-General, over the duties of the officers of the department in maintaining accounts, and give legitimate support to the Accountant-General in enforcing strict attention to the rules concerning the disbursement of money, custody of stores, and submission of accounts. 18. The Chief Engineer will prepare, annually, the portion of the budget estimates relating to the works under his control, and, as soon as possible after the close of each year, prepare a report of the progress made during that period on the Public Works under his charge, giving a brief but clear account of the operation of his wing The general supervision and control of the assessment of revenue from irrigation and navigation works within the limits of his charge will also rest with the Chief Engineer, who will frame the necessary estimates and watch carefully the progress of realizations during the course of the year. 19. It will be the duty of the Chief Engineer to see that the budget allotments of his wing for the year are fully expended, in so far as is consistent with general economy and the prevention of large expenditure in that last month of the year for the sole purpose of avoiding lapses. He will be responsible for ensuring that any money which is not likely to be needed during the year is promptly surrendered, so as to allow its appropriation for other purposes by the proper authority. 20. The Chief Engineer will inspect each circle office under his charge once in a year and each divisional office once in every two years and submit a report to Engineer-in-Chief soon after the inspection has been made. Note - Whenever, inspection, as prescribed above could not be made, a report stating reasons thereof should be submitted to Engineer -in-Chief by 7th January of the year following the year in which the inspection was due. 21. Note - Whenever, inspection, as prescribed above could not be made, a report stating reasons thereof should be submitted to Engineer -in-Chief by 7th January of the year following the year in which the inspection was due. 21. When any Military Works are placed under the administration of the Public Works Department, questions relating to military details will be referred by the Chief Engineer to the General Officer Commanding Divisions or Brigades. A Chief Engineer may correspond direct with the Heads of Departments on all matters relating to details of buildings or works appertaining of those Departments. 22. The Chief Engineer/Chief Engineer (Design) is responsible for all structural designs. He is the professional head of that wing in respect of approval of designs, drawings, and specification of all structures. 18. The rule under the Jharkhand Engineering Service Rules, 2016, was framed by the Government of Jharkhand under Article 309 of the Constitution of India for regulating appointment, promotion conditions of service, pay, allowances and pension. Jharkhand Engineering services have all the works department of the Government of Jharkhand which came into effect from the date of notification in the official gazette published on 03.05.2016. The relevant provisions are being quoted as under: 2(e)“Junior/Assistant/Executive/ Superintendent/Chief Engineer and Engineer-in-Chief” means the engineer in the cadre of Road Construction Department 3. Constitution of Service:- I. All the duty posts included in the service as specified in Schedule-I shall constitute the Jharkhand Engineering Service. II. The said service shall comprise of the members included in Schedule I belonging to the following three works Departments of the Government of Jharkhand:- a. Road Construction Department. b. Water Resources Department, c. Drinking Water and Sanitation Department 8. Seniority:- (I) Assistant Engineer shall be the entry grade in the Grade-B. The Jharkhand engineering service and the inter-se seniority of the members of the Assistant Engineer (Direct entry) shall be in accordance with the rank in the merit panel as recommenced by the commission & inter se seniority of Assistant Engineer (Promoted) in the same transaction shall be as per their seniority in the cadre of junior engineer. (II) There shall be separate seniority list for Assistant Engineers (direct entry) and Assistant Engineers (promoted) as per sub rule (I) of rule-8. (II) There shall be separate seniority list for Assistant Engineers (direct entry) and Assistant Engineers (promoted) as per sub rule (I) of rule-8. (III) The inter-se-seniority list of the members appointed as Executive Engineer amongst Assistant Engineers (Direct entry) & Assistant Engineers(Promoted) shall be determined by the relevant circulars to this effect issued by the State Govt. from time to time. On the basis of this promotion will be provided to the next higher posts as Superintending Engineer, Chief Engineer & Engineer-in-Chief.” "21. Repeal:- All rules and regulations, orders and instructions in force immediately before the date of commencement of these rules in respect of matters relating to the service policy inconsistent to these rules are hereby repealed. 19. It is evident from the provision of BIHAR ENGINEERING SERVICE RULES 1939, under the Rule 3, the sanctioned strength of the service has been provided which has already been referred hereinabove. 20. Clause 6 of the PWD Code gives the name and designation of the post of the Jharkhand Engineering Service, which is quoted as under: (a) Class I Name and designation of posts- Engineer-in-chief, Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineer Executive Engineer, (b) Class II Name and designation of post- Assistant Engineer." 21. The duties of the officer of the Public Works Department were also mentioned under sub-head "F" and Clause "15 to 15 B" deal with the Engineer-in-Chief and Clause "15 C to 22" deal with Chief Engineer. 22. As per the 2 (f) of Rule 1939 "superior post" means the post of Chief Engineer, Deputy Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineer, Executive Engineer, Undersecretary to the Provincial Government in the Public Works Department and such other posts as may be specially classed as superior by the Governor. 23. The Jharkhand Engineering Service Recruitment Rules, 2016 has been enacted in exercise of power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India for regulating appointment, promotion, condition of service, pay, allowances and pension. Further the rules of 2016 define engineers as follows:- 2(e)“Junior/Assistant/Executive/ Superintendent/Chief Engineer and Engineer-in-Chief” means the engineer in the cadre of Road Construction Department. 24. 23. The Jharkhand Engineering Service Recruitment Rules, 2016 has been enacted in exercise of power conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India for regulating appointment, promotion, condition of service, pay, allowances and pension. Further the rules of 2016 define engineers as follows:- 2(e)“Junior/Assistant/Executive/ Superintendent/Chief Engineer and Engineer-in-Chief” means the engineer in the cadre of Road Construction Department. 24. Rule 8 deals with "Seniority" and Rule 8 (III) mentions that the inter se seniority list of members appointed as Executive Engineer amongst Assistant Engineers (Direct Entry) and Assistant Engineer (promoted) shall be determined by the relevant Circulars to this effect issued by the State government from time to time and on such basis, promotion will be provided to next higher post as Superintending Engineer, Chief Engineer & Engineer in Chief. Rule 8 is quoted as under: Schedule-I of the aforesaid rule contains the post which is Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary. Schedule-II is the post of Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary and the Chief Engineer (Civil) to filled up by way of promotion. 25. The Schedule I of the aforesaid Rule so far it relates to Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary Group A and Chief Engineer (Group A). The 2016 Rule has been enacted in supersession to the Rule 1939. 26. It needs to refer herein that the provision of 2016 Rule is in supersession to the Rule 1939 but with the second clause as under Rule 15. The purpose of making reference of the second clause is that all the circulars/resolution issued and acted upon will be saved. 27. Further it needs to refer herein the gist of the impugned decision dated 26.02.2024, which holds that the post of Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary is equivalent to the post of Engineer-in-Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department (Vigilance Wing), Jharkhand and upon perusal of the impugned decision itself, it appears as follows:- “a. That the Post of “Engineer-In-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary” is sanctioned as the higher cadre post under Jharkhand Engineering Service Class-I, under Road Construction Department, Rural Development Department, Rural Development Department and Building Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand. In the light of the above, vide Departmental Notification No.-676 dated 23.02.2022 Shri Bhagat, Engineer-In-Chief, Rural Works Department has been promoted as “Engineer-In-Chief-cum Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary” w.e.f. 24.12.2019 amending the previously issued notification no.1561 dated 08.07.2020. In the light of the above, vide Departmental Notification No.-676 dated 23.02.2022 Shri Bhagat, Engineer-In-Chief, Rural Works Department has been promoted as “Engineer-In-Chief-cum Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary” w.e.f. 24.12.2019 amending the previously issued notification no.1561 dated 08.07.2020. b. That as per the Cabinet Vigilance Department Resolution No.412 dated 05.07.2002, a post of Engineer-In-Chief/Chief Engineer has been created for the Technical Examiner Cell. Paragraph 5 of the said resolution states that: “In this organization, there will be officers from various engineering departments like PWD (Road Construction/Building Construction), Irrigation/Public Health Engineering Departments whose competence and integrity are certified.” The post of “Engineer-In-Chief/Chief Engineer” is sanctioned for the Technical Examiner Cell in the Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department (Vigilance), Jharkhand, Ranchi. Therefore, by departmental notification No.3981 dated 17.08.2023, the services of Shri Murari Bhagat, the then Engineer-In-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, has been taken back from the Rural Works Department and he has been made Engineer-In-Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat till further orders. c. That both the posts of Engineer-In-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary” and “Engineer-In-Chief” are equivalent posts and the pay scale is also the same. That the Road Construction Department can also extend the Services of its Engineer-In-Chief to the Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department (Vigilance Division). In accordance with the above, Mr. Bhagat has been posted on the post of Engineer-In-Chief (which is equivalent post as Engineer-In-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary) by the department. The said post in Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department (Vigilance), Jharkhand, Ranchi has duly been created and notified.” 28. Now adverting to the issues as referred herein above, since the said issues are interlinked as such it has been taken together. 29. This Court is to consider that if the resolution dated 05.07.2002 is in existence, then without questioning its validity, will it be available for the writ petitioner to take the ground that if he has been posted in pursuance of the resolution dated 05.07.2002 as Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, will it amount to reduction him from the post of Engineer-In-Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department (Vigilance Wing), Jharkhand, Ranchi or will it be the administrative exigency within the domain of the State. 30. In the aforesaid context the law is well-settled that the employer has exclusive domain to post/transfer one public servant in one or the other post depending upon the administrative exigencies. 31. 30. In the aforesaid context the law is well-settled that the employer has exclusive domain to post/transfer one public servant in one or the other post depending upon the administrative exigencies. 31. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shilpi Bose and Others v. State of Bihar and Others , AIR 1991 SC 532 , at paragraph 4, has held that the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest, for ready reference, paragraph 4 of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted and referred hereunder as:- 4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders. 32. Similarly, in the case of State of U.P. and Others v. Gobardhan Lal , (2004) 11 SCC 402 it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the courts or tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. For ready reference paragraph 8 of the aforesaid judgment is being referred hereunder as:- “8. For ready reference paragraph 8 of the aforesaid judgment is being referred hereunder as:- “8. A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the courts or tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. This is for the reason that courts or tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State and even allegations of mala fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer.” 33. In the case of N.K. Singh v. Union of India , AIR 1995 SC 423 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that Transfer of a government servant in a transferable service is a necessary incident of the service career. The relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:- “22. Transfer of a government servant in a transferable service is a necessary incident of the service career. Assessment of the quality of men is to be made by the superiors taking into account several factors including suitability of the person for a particular post and exigencies of administration. Several imponderables requiring formation of a subjective opinion in that sphere may be involved, at times. The only realistic approach is to leave it to the wisdom of the hierarchical superiors to make the decision. Unless the decision is vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm of principle governing the transfer, which alone can be scrutinized judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinizing all transfers and the courts lack the necessary expertise for personnel management of all government departments. This must be left, in public interest, to the departmental heads subject to the limited judicial scrutiny indicated.” 34. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. S.S. Kourav , AIR 1995 SC 1056 , the Administrative Tribunal had interfered with the transfer order of the Respondent and directed him to be posted at a particular place. This must be left, in public interest, to the departmental heads subject to the limited judicial scrutiny indicated.” 34. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. S.S. Kourav , AIR 1995 SC 1056 , the Administrative Tribunal had interfered with the transfer order of the Respondent and directed him to be posted at a particular place. It is relevant to note that while setting aside the order of the tribunal the Hon’ble Apex Court observed in Para 4 of its judgment as follows: 4....The Courts or Tribunals are not appellate forums to decide on transfers of officers on administrative grounds. The wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the Courts or Tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to proper places. It is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background foundation. In this case we have seen that on the administrative grounds the transfer orders came to be issued. Therefore, we cannot go into the expediency of posting an officer at a particular place. 35. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Others , (2007) 8 SCC 150 has been pleased to observe that an order of transfer is a part of the service conditions of an employee which should not be interfered with ordinarily by a court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 unless the court finds that either the order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer. 36. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Airports Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey , 2009 (8) SCC 337 has observed that in a matter of transfer of a govt. employee, the scope of judicial review is limited and the High Court would not interfere with an order of transfer lightly, be it at interim stage or final hearing. This is so because the courts do not substitute their own decision in the matter of transfer. 37. employee, the scope of judicial review is limited and the High Court would not interfere with an order of transfer lightly, be it at interim stage or final hearing. This is so because the courts do not substitute their own decision in the matter of transfer. 37. It is thus, evident from the aforesaid judgments that the High Court in exercise of power of judicial review requires to show least interference in the matter of transfer on the basis of the principle that who will be posted at which place it is the exclusive domain of the appointing authority. 38. Further one more important aspect of the aforesaid issue is that the government servant does not have right not to comply with the posting order without there being any interference or otherwise protection given by the Court or by the superior authority and to keep on filing petition after petition challenging the order in the High Court. Government servant cannot claim that he should be posted at a particular place for a particular period. The posting is an incidence of service. The transfer of government servant by issuing transfer order is a natural requirement in service law. The transfer is affected keeping in mind the exigency of service, and in public interest or for administrative reasons. It is the sole discretion of the appointing authority to post the government servant at any place where he/she is more required. Of course, if order of posting has been passed in violation of any statutory Provision or Rule or is a result of mala fide or bias of the authorities, then that can be subjected to scrutiny by the Court but unless the order so suffers, the High Court will, normally, not interfere in the order of posting/transfer. 39. Likewise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P reported in (2009) 15 SCC 178 held as under:- “8. A Government Servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. State of U.P reported in (2009) 15 SCC 178 held as under:- “8. A Government Servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary. No Government can function if the Government Servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. 9. The courts are always reluctant in interfering with the transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from mala fides.” 40. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that Government Servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. 41. Further, it also needs to refer herein that the equivalence of two posts is not judged by the sole factor of equal pay and identified four factors in that regard, namely, (i) the nature and duties of the post; (ii) the responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer holding a post; the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged; (iii) the minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post; and (iv) the salary of the post. 42. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vice-Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University v. Dayanand Jha , (1986) 3 SCC 7 at para 8 of the judgment, has observed which reads as under: “Learned counsel for the respondent is therefore right in contending that equivalence of the pay scale is not the only factor in judging whether the post of Principal and that of Reader are equivalent posts. We are inclined to agree with him that the real criterion to adopt is whether they could be regarded of equal status and responsibility. … The true criterion for equivalence is the status and the nature and responsibility of the duties attached to the two posts.” 43. We are inclined to agree with him that the real criterion to adopt is whether they could be regarded of equal status and responsibility. … The true criterion for equivalence is the status and the nature and responsibility of the duties attached to the two posts.” 43. It needs to refer herein that the competent authority after due deliberation, declared the aforesaid two posts equivalent by order dated 26.02.2024. 44. In the case of P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General , (2003) 2 SCC 632, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that it is ultimately for the Government to take an appropriate decision on equation of posts and questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of Policy and within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under: 10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of both parties. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the statutory tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/substraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service. 45. It needs to refer herein that it is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work and further the questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review, reference be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade , (2019) 6 SCC 362 . The relevant paragraph is being quoted as under: 9. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being on a par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the court cannot sit in judgment over the same. If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same. 46. Further in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Imtiyaz Ahmad , (2019) 2 SCC 404 the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. 47. Further it needs to refer herein that the Road Construction Department is well within its administrative powers to extend the services of its Engineer-in-Chief to the Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department (Vigilance Division), Government of Jharkhand and accordingly the writ petitioner has been duly posted to the post of Engineer-in-Chief in the Technical Examiner Cell, which is an equivalent post to that of Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary. The said post in the Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department (Vigilance Division), Ranchi, Jharkhand, has been duly created and notified by the competent authority. 48. Both the posts of "Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum Special Secretary" and "Engineer-in-Chief" are equivalent in rank, status, and pay scale which would also be evident from decision dated 26.02.2024. Since the decision dated 26.02.2024 which is the policy of the state, therefore the determination of issue of equivalence of the post, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is exclusively lies with the state who is the employer. 49. Further, admittedly herein the pay-scale which the post of Engineer-In-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary is being attached is also attached to the post of Engineer-In- Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department (Vigilance Wing), Jharkhand, Ranchi as created in pursuance of the resolution dated 05.07.2002. 50. 49. Further, admittedly herein the pay-scale which the post of Engineer-In-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary is being attached is also attached to the post of Engineer-In- Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department (Vigilance Wing), Jharkhand, Ranchi as created in pursuance of the resolution dated 05.07.2002. 50. It is evident from Resolution No. 412 dated 05.07.2002, which governs the structure and functioning of the Technical Examiner Cell under the Vigilance Department wherein at Paragraph 5 of the aforementioned resolution lays down the clear intention of the Government to constitute the specialized cell with officers drawn from various engineering departments, including PWD (Road Construction/Building Construction), Irrigation, and Public Heath Engineering Departments. The aforesaid paragraph reads as follows: "In this organization, there will be officers from various engineering departments like PWD (Road Construction/Building Construction), Irrigation/Public Health Engineering Departments, whose competence and integrity are certified." 51. This provision reflects the deliberate and considered policy decision of the Government to bring technically competent and ethically sound officers into the Technical Examiner Cell. The creation of the post of Engineer-in-Chief/Chief Engineer is not merely symbolic but a substantive measure to ensure that the cell is headed and staffed by individuals with the requisite technical expertise and proven integrity, duly certified by the concerned departments. 52. At this juncture, the question of detriment to the interest of the writ petitioner is to be taken into consideration as to which post is to be considered detrimental to the interest of the concerned employee, if there is no reversion in the pay-scale. 53. Further, merely due to change in duty and responsibility can it be said to rebutting a public servant to the post to be considered as the post which has been attached to public servant. 54. The law in this regard is well-settled that reversion means that there is lowering down of the post both in the salary and the post lower in hierarchy. But admittedly herein the post of Engineer-In- Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department (Vigilance Wing), Jharkhand and post of Engineer-In-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, cannot be said to be not equal in the light of resolution dated 26.02.2024. 55. Vide Departmental Notification No. 3981, read with Memo No. 3982, both dated 17.08.2023, the writ-petitioner was transferred and posted as Engineer-in-Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, under the Department of Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance (Vigilance Division), Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 55. Vide Departmental Notification No. 3981, read with Memo No. 3982, both dated 17.08.2023, the writ-petitioner was transferred and posted as Engineer-in-Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, under the Department of Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance (Vigilance Division), Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. It needs to refer herein that as per the settled position of law as referred hereinabove, the posting/transfer of public servant from one assignment to another depends upon the administrative exigency which is the exclusive domain of the concerned employer and there cannot be any interference by the Court of law in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 56. We are conscious with the power of judicial review to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly in the matter of transfer of the employee of the state. 57. It is settled position of law that only on the ground of malice or posting in the lower hierarchy, the power of judicial review can be exercised by the High Court in exercise of the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 58. This Court is now proceeding to examine as to whether the transfer of the writ petitioner to the post of Engineer-In- Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department (Vigilance Wing), Jharkhand can be said to be detrimental to the interest or equivalent to that of post of Engineer-In-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary. 59. Since, we have already referred herein, that the reversion of post will amount to both lowering of the post along with the salary but herein the salary of the post of the Engineer-In- Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department (Vigilance Wing), Jharkhand to which the petitioner has been posted is equivalent to the post of Engineer-In-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, however, the duty is different to that of Engineer-In-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary. Admittedly, the post of Engineer-In- Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, is a technical post while the post of Engineer-In-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary is in the administrative side. 60. Admittedly, the post of Engineer-In- Chief, Technical Examiner Cell, is a technical post while the post of Engineer-In-Chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary is in the administrative side. 60. Merely because a public servant is posted in the administrative side, it cannot be said that such public servant cannot be posted in the technical side, rather the State being an employer is having every right to take the service of one or the other public servant on its own wisdom and there cannot be any interference or dictate by the public servant or even by the Court of law unless the malice is being established by the concerned employee. 61. This Court, in view of the aforesaid discussion, is answering the aforesaid issues against the respondent/writ petitioner. 62. On the basis of the discussion made hereinabove it is considered view of this Court that the order passed by the learned writ Court requires interference due to the following reasons: (i) This Court, after going through the order passed by the learned Single Judge, has found that the implication of word Reversion/reduction has not been taken into consideration in right perspective. (ii) The learned Single Judge has also not appreciated the settled position of law that the transfer is affected keeping in mind the exigency of service, and in public interest or for administrative reasons and it is the sole discretion of the appointing authority to post the government servant at any place where he/she is more required as per the administrative need. (iii) This Court has also found that although the issue of equivalence of the post has been framed as an issue by the learned writ Court but the aforesaid issue of equivalence of post has not been answered conclusively by the learned writ Court and in spite of that the decision dated 26.02.2024 by which both the posts are held to be equivalent has been dismissed by the learned writ Court. (iv) The learned writ Court has also not taken in consideration the settled position of law that the employee has no vested right to insist on continuing in specific post or department rather posting is governed by exigencies of service and administrative necessity. 63. This Court, based upon the aforesaid reason and taking into consideration legal aspects as discussed above, is of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge needs to be interfered with. 64. 63. This Court, based upon the aforesaid reason and taking into consideration legal aspects as discussed above, is of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge needs to be interfered with. 64. Accordingly, the order/judgment dated 15.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 6693 of 2023, is hereby, quashed and set aside. 65. Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby, allowed. 66. In consequence thereof, writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6693 of 2023 is dismissed. 67. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. I Agree - Rajesh Kumar, J.