IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12517 of 2011 Surendra Prasad Sinha Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 02. 11.8.2011 Petitioner is one of the employees who seems to have been transferred from one circle to another. He is supposed to be a clerk working under Commercial Taxes Department. Annexure-1 is the order of transfer. Perusal of this annexure shows that large scale transfer has been made across the board across the State obviously for the reasons that they had stayed for more than three years. Submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that there is lack of power vested in the authority, who has issued the notification contained in Annexure-1. In support thereof he has annexed S.O. No.43 dated 2.7.2007 contained in Annexure-2, which is a notification issued under section 10(2) of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005. Fallacy in the submission of the counsel is evident from perusal of Annexure-2. This is a notification which defines the limit and area of the jurisdiction in matter of assessment which is to be made by the concerned taxing authority. How it relates to the matter of transfer is not understood by this Court. The reasoning or the logic applied for assailing the order of transfer seems to be fallacious and does not merit consideration. 2 Another contention of the counsel that there cannot be a transfer inter division is only a submission and not based on a circular or order annexed with the writ application. The order of transfer does not require to be interfered with. Writ is dismissed as there is no legal infirmity in the transfer order emerging from the record. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)