IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC NO.2780 OF 2010 RAMASHISH TIWARY, SON OF LATE SAHDEO TIWARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE BHADRARA, POLICE STATION TARAVI, DISTRICT BHOJPUR. AT PRESENT EX-SERGEANT MAJOR, POLICE LINES, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR ……………………………………………PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, ANUP MUKHERJEE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SHRI NILMANI, SON OF NOT KNOWN, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. MR. GUPTESHWAR PANDEY, SON OF NOT KNOW, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MUZAFFARPUR RANGE, MUZAFFARPUR 4. MR. PANKAJ DAVAD, SON OF NOT KNOWN, THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MUZAFFARPUR 5. MR. SUNIL KUMAR, SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUZAFFARPUR 6. MR. RAJESH RANJAN, INSPECTOR GENERAL, HEADQUARTERS, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 7. MR. P. K. THAKUR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR GENERAL, HEAD QUARTER AND ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA ………………………………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES ********* 4 15/09/2010 This Court is not at all satisfied with the order passed by the Inspector General (Headquarter & Administration), Bihar, Patna vide memo no. 2704, dated 08.06.2010. By order dated 20.05.2010 passed in CWJC No. 8644 of 2010, this Court had asked the Inspector General (Headquarter & Administration) to consider the case of the petitioner to be posted in the home district on the ground that he was at the verge of the retirement. The order of the Inspector General (Headquarter & Administration) indicates that the Election Commission has issued certain directions with respect to transfer and 2 posting of the Officers prior and during the election. These directions are contained in Annexure-C which is as follows:- “The Commission, in its task of conducting free and fair election has followed the consistent policy to ensure that officers, who are connected with the conduct of elections in the States, do not serve in their home districts or places where they have served for long and decided that no officer connected with election, directly or indirectly, should be allowed to continue in the present district of posting.” It is submitted that on this basis, aforesaid transfers and postings were made. The transfer was made on 30th April, 2010. The petitioner would come within the last part of the directions of the Election Commission, quoted at Annexure-C i.e. he should not be allowed to continue „in the present place of posting‟. The petitioner was posted at Muzaffarpur and as such he has been posted to Supaul. Considering the stand of the Inspector General (Headquarter & Administration), this Court directs that the petitioner‟s posting to Supaul should be restricted to the election period. After the elections are over, sometime in November, 2010, the Inspector General (Headquarter & Administration) is directed to reconsider posting the 3 petitioner in his home district or near about his home district, considering that he has about two years left before his retirement. I may make it clear that this Court realizes that the provisions is not mandatory, but it has been and is being considered by all authorities and, therefore, all persons in service should get equal opportunity to get the benefit of this provision. This contempt application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )