IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1104 of 2009 NAWAL KISHORE TIWARI SON OF LATE BANSHI TIWARI RESIDENT OF MOHALLA LODIPUR,P.O.,G.P.O., P.S.GANDHI MAIDAN,DISTRICT PATNA ---- APPELLANT/PETITIONER Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER-CUM- SECRETARY, HOME (SPECIAL),GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA 2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,BIHAR,PATNA 3.THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY,HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND,RANCHI 4.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,RANCHI,JHARKHAND ---- RESPONDENTS ----- FOR THE APPELLANT : M/S SUNIL KUMAR AND UPENDRA MISHRA FOR THE STATE OF BIHAR : MR. S.C.GHOSH,AAG 2 FOR THE STATE OF JHARKHAND :MR.DHRUBA MUKHERJEE FOR THE INTERVENOR : MR.RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN ----------- 4/ 06.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State of Bihar, learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand and also learned counsel for the Intervenor Smt.Anjali Kumari Sinha. There is no material to show that the post of constable held by the appellant was not a district cadre post but a State cadre post. There is no material to further show that the post of constable at least in the district cadre was within the ambit of cadre bifurcation upon creation of State of Bihar and Jharkhand. In such circumstances, the prayer of the appellant for mutual transfer to the State of Jharkhand could not have been allowed and the writ court, therefore, has rightly dismissed the writ petition. We find 2 no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. On behalf of the Intervenor Smt. Anjali Kumari Sinha, it has been submitted that some observations in the order under appeal are likely to adversely affect the Intervenor whose prayer for mutual transfer from Jharkhand to Bihar was allowed on 6th June, 2005. In the light of such submission, we have gone through the order under appeal. The observation in respect to the Intervenor is only to the extent that the Chief Secretaries of the two States will take into account as to how and on what basis Intervenor was allowed inter-State transfer on mutual basis and if it is found that she could not have been allowed such mutual transfer, it would always be open to the concerned authorities to cancel the same in appropriate manner. The observation noticed above does not give any finding of fact or law against the Intervenor. It only enables the competent authority to examine the case of the Intervenor. If the mutual inter-state 3 transfer of the Invtervenor is found to be against the law, then only, in appropriate manner the competent authority is required to pass final order(s). Learned counsel for the Intervenor has submitted that pursuant to the observation made by the writ court, the Intervenor’s transfer from Jharkhand to Bihar on mutual basis has been cancelled. In our view, such order of cancellation gives a separate cause of action to the Intervenor and, if so advised, she may challenge the said order through appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. The Intervention petition is also disposed of. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) Tahir/- ( Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)