IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3728 of 2010 1. UMESH PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE RAM NAGINA SINGH WORKING AS S.P.C.A. INSPECTOR POSTED AT SASARAM R/O VILLAGE HAFIJPUR KARMAUR,P.S-PANDARAK DISTRICT-PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIG(PERSONNEL) BIHAR SECRETARIAT,PATNA 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ROHTAS AT SASARAM 4. RATNESHWAR PRASAD SINGH S/O PERMESHWAR SINGH RESIDENT OF MOHALLA KUAR SINGH COLONY NEAR R.N COLLEGE P.S.TOWN,DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 5. JITENDRA NARAYAN SINGH S/O LATE UTTIM NARAIN SINGH R/O VILLAGE-PAAGAHIYA,P.S-SARAIYA ,DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 2. 17.9.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Who should be posted as an Inspector, SPCA at Sasaram is for the administrator to decide at its various levels. The Court is not expected to perform the duties of the administrator. The Court steps in only when the administrator acts contrary to law. If the administrative issue is stated to be engaging the attention of the administrator as is suggested from Annexure-17 of the letter dated 5.1.2010, this Court fails to understand why administrative deficiency should assume the nature of litigation in the manner of a writ petition under Article 226. It is unfortunate that a mandamus is required to the administrator to perform his administrative duties. Let the same be done expeditiously. This order shall not be understood or interpreted in any manner by any party to the litigation as any observation, direction or opinion of the Court. The matter pertains entirely in the administrative domain. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)