IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.13821 of 2008 Dr. Rukhsana Khatoon, wife of late Zahiruddin, resident of Phulwarisharif, P.S. Phulwarisharif, district Patna .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Division, Patna 3. The District Education Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif 4. Shri Hari Narayan Singh, Hon’ble Minister, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 5. Sri Satish Kumar Sinha, son of not known, Member of Managing Committee, Nehru High School, Parasdih, P.S. Nagar Nausa, district Nalanda .. Respondents **** For the petitioner .. Mr. R.P. Singh, Sr. Adv. With M/S Rejeev Kr. Singh & Rakesh Kr. Singh, Advs. For the State .. Mr. Neeraj Nandan, G.P. 18 **** /4/ 02.02.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent State. 3. Petitioner is the In-charge Headmistress of Nehru High School, Parasdiha, Nalanda. She has been transferred to R.B. High School, Hilsa, Nalanda, by the order, contained in 2 Memo No. 1700, dated 29.07.2008, issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Division. Petitioner’s case is that the transfer order was never served upon her, but, vide order, contained in Memo No. 1457, dated 25.08.2008, she has been relieved by the order of the District Superintendent of Education, Nalanda, in compliance of the transfer order, contained in Memo No. 1700, dated 29.07.2008. 4. Transfer order as well as the relieving of the petitioner, contained in Annexure 1, has been challenged on two counts; (1) this transfer order is in violation of Rule 10 of the Bihar District Board Secondary and Higher Secondary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006. Secondly, the order is tainted with malafide. As per Rule 10 of the Bihar District Board Secondary and Higher Secondary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006, post of secondary teachers is non-transferable. Teachers can be transferred during entire service career on two occasions only after completion of three years. The transfer of teachers concerned, can be done, when the teachers themselves either represent or exercise their option for such transfer. 3 5. In the counter affidavit it is admitted that this is not the optional transfer of the petitioner. She has not applied for it, as such, Rule 10 has no application in the present transfer order. 6. The petitioner has also alleged malafide stating that the school in question has three acres of land, donated by the owner of the land in favour of the school. One Satish Kumar Sinha, who is related to respondent no. 4 was introduced as educationist member of the school though an accused in criminal case registered for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. This Satish Kumar Sinha was utilizing yields of those three acres of land. He was not giving it’s account. Since the petitioner is the In-charge of the school she questioned this and filed representation before the concerned authorities. Due to this reason she has arbitrarily been transferred. Allegation made by the petitioner has been denied in the counter affidavit making counter allegation. Till date, on account of such allegation no disciplinary action has been taken by the respondents against the petitioner. It seems that simply to deny the allegation counter allegation has been made. 4 7. Without going into the allegation and counter allegation, relating to the malafide this application is being decided considering the fact that transfer order has been passed in violation of Rule 10 of the Bihar District Board Secondary and Higher Secondary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006. The order, contained in Annexure ‘C’ to the counter affidavit and the relieving order, Annexure 1 to the writ application, are quashed. 8. With these observations and directions, this application is allowed. Cp:2/S.A. ( Mridula Mishra, J. )