IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17882 of 2008 MR.GIRANAND YADAV, S/O Late Anuplal Yadav, R/O Village- Khajurihat, P.S. Bhargama, District- Araria……Petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Secretary, Welfare Depaertment, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.The Director, Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4.The Director, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna……….Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajendra Pkd. Singh, Sr. Advocate. 2. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh 3. Mr. Mritunjay Kumar. For the state: Mr. A.K. Singh, J.C. to S.C.-21 3. 03.02.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is aggrieved on account of cancellation of the transfer order dated 30.6.2008 contained in Memo No. 2322 issued by the Director, SC/ST Welfare Department. By this order, the petitioner was transferred from Bhagalpur to Banmankhi. The petitioner had represented for his transfer from Bhagalpur to Banmankhi on the ground that his wife is working there as teacher. Representation of the petitioner was allowed and he was transferred by order dated 30.6.2008 from Bhagalpur to Banmankhi. Petitioner’s case is that after his transfer, he gave joining , started functioning there but subsequently, the order contained in Memo No. 3619 dated 15.10.2008 was issued by the Director, SC/ST Welfare Department whereby the earlier order dated 30.6.2008 contained in Memo No. 2322 was cancelled. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the - 2 - state. However, in a similar matter, in C.W.J.C. No. 16263 of 2008, a counter affidavit has been filed. In that writ application also, same impugned letter was under challenge. In the counter affidavit filed in C.W.J.C. No. 16263 of 2008, it has been stated that since the earlier transfer order issued in favour of the petitioner was in violation of the rule, it has been cancelled. No specific rule has been mentioned which violated on account of petitioner’s transfer from Bhagalpur to Banmankhi . Counsel for the petitioner submits that the rule relating to the teachers’ transfer is very much specific that usually, there will not be any transfer. The transfer orders will not be issued in less than three years’ time. There will be transfer of teachers from one place to another on the basis of option exercised by the teachers. Since, the transfer order contained in Annexure-5 is an optional transfer of the petitioner issujed on adminiatrative ground, it cannot be treated as an order passed in violation of Rule. Further it is submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that this is the policy of the state government that as far as possible, if husband and wife, both are government employees, they should be posted at one place. In fact, the order of transfer (Annexure-2) had been issued in consonance of the Policy decision of the Govt. On consideration of all these facts, I do not find that - 3 - if the petitioner was transferred from Bhagalpur to Banmankhi on the ground that his wife is posted and working there, the order was passed in violation of the rules. Accordingly, the order contained in letter no. 3619 dated 15.10.2008 cancelling the earlier transfer order (Annexure-2) is quashed. Since the petitioner has already joined at the transferred place of posting, he will continue there. This application is allowed. AKV/ (Mridula Mishra,J.)