IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16426 of 2008 RAGHUNANDAN BISWAS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr Rajeev Kumar Singh,Advocate For the State : Mr Piyush Lal, JC to AAG 3 For Respondent no.3: Mr Chandramauli Chaurasia, Advocate -------- 6. 28.01.2009 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State as also the learned Counsel for private respondent no. 3. The petitioner and private respondent no. 3 were transferred by order dated 30.6.208 to Kishanganj and Jamui respectively. The petitioner is stated to have joined his transferred place of posting on 22.7.2008 which is not disputed by the State respondents in their counter affidavit. Subsequently the order of transfer dated 30.6.2008 has been cancelled by an order dated 3.10.2008. This is purported to have been done in pursuance of government order dated 1.10.2008. The additional grievance is that while respondent no. 3 is sought to be brought back to Kishanganj there are no orders for fresh posting of the petitioner. The State respondents in their counter affidavit at Para 7 have admitted that while reposting respondent no. 3 to Kishanganj no orders for posting of the petitioner had been passed but that it was in the process. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 submitted that in pursuance of the order dated 3.10.2008 he had already joined at Kishanganj and was now sought to be restrained by virtue of interim order obtained by the petitioner from this Court on 24.11.2008 in the present proceeding. The issue of law with regard to annulment/cancellation of a transfer order which had already taken effect by joining of the incumbent making it a spent force, redundant, when nothing remained for cancellation or annulment has been considered by two Bench decisions of this Court reported in 2000 (2) PLJR 332 ( Smt. Jyotsna Kumari Vs The State of Bihar & ors. ) and 2000 (3) PLJR 139 (Mahmood Azam vs. The State of Bihar & ors. ). In the facts of the present case, the arbitrariness on the part of the respondent State is further evident from their admission that while bringing respondent no. 3 back to Kishanganj, no orders for posting of the petitioner had been passed. On consideration of the law as discussed above this Court finds it difficult to sustain the order dated 3.10.2008 issued in pursuance of a government order dated 1.10.2008. The impugned orders are accordingly quashed in so far as the petitioner and respondent no. 3 are concerned. This shall however be without prejudice to the rights of the respondent State to deal with the petitioner and respondent no. 3 on the issue of transfer and posting in accordance with the government policy in that regard. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)