IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3252 of 2011 Pushpadant Singh, S/O Late Ishwardhari Singh, Resident of village Baropur, P.S. Baniapur, District-Saran. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Human resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Patna. ----------- 2 28.04.2011 Petitioner has filed this writ application challenging the order of the Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar dated 21.01.2011, as contained in Annexure-6, by which on allegedly administrative grounds, petitioner has been transferred from the post of Block Education Extension Officer, Danapur (Patna) to Primary Teachers Education College, Bikram as Lecturer. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier there was chain of transfer by the department by order dated 20.09.2008 as contained in Annexure-1, in which petitioner was transferred from Madhubani to his present place of posting at Danapur. The said order was however, cancelled just within a month by the Department by order dated 16.10.2008, as contained in Annexure- 2. The said transferees of Annexure-1, had however already joined on their transferred post. Hence, they challenged the subsequent order of cancellation of transfer before this Court in C.W.J.C No. 15667 of 2008. The said application was taken up on 22.10.2008 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. On that date the learned counsel for the State prayed for time to seek instructions and file 2 counter affidavit. The prayer was allowed, but it was directed that until further orders the said order dated 16.10.2008 shall remain stayed. As per the stay order fresh order was issued by the Department dated 20.11.2008 as contained in Annexure-4 rectifying the same place of posting of the petitioners and others as made by Annexure-1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said interim order still continues and the writ application is still pending. Hence, the respondents were not at liberty to disturb the place of posting of the petitioner and transfer him to anywhere else. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case by the respondents. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the present transfer order of the petitioner is independent of the chain of transfers effected by Annexure-2, as the petitioner has been transferred on administrative grounds. It has been disclosed in the counter affidavit that there were some allegations against the petitioner in the light of which a departmental proceeding was initiated against him by notification dated 15.03.2010 and the charges were framed and issued to him. The said notification was later on modified by order dated 21.09.2008 vide Annexure-A with change of Conducting Officer and of Presenting Officer. Since the proceeding was pending against the petitioner with respect to serious charges he has been transferred on administrative grounds. It is stated that the said writ application is pending on account of appeals filed before Division Bench of this Court. It is submitted that the L.P.A has now been disposed of by 3 Division Bench by order dated 30.07.2009, a copy whereof is Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that now the respondents will take steps for an early hearing of the said writ application. Under what circumstances the appeals were filed before Division Bench and what orders have been passed, is not relevant for the purposes of this case. The fact remains that in the writ application the operation of order as contained in Annexure-2 had been stayed the stay order still continues. Therefore, it will be deemed that the order of posting of the petitioner by Annexure-1, and re-notified by Annexure-4, is in operation. Learned counsel for the respondents may be right that the order of transfer of the petitioner was on administrative grounds and not connected with the earlier orders. But, it was appropriated for the respondents to bring this fact to the notice of the Bench in the pending case that they required to transfer the petitioner to somewhere else due to proceeding initiated against him. It is also a matter of concern of the respondents as to why if serious charges were against the petitioner and the departmental proceeding was already on, why he has merely been transferred from Danapur to Bikram which may come in his way in conveniently participating in the departmental proceeding, which has to be conducted now by a Dy. Director in the Department and which may become a cause of grievance to him later on. They could also well consider as to, for convenience of the petitioner in participating in the departmental proceeding and to ensure early disposal of the same, in stead of transferring 4 him, he could be placed under suspension. But these matters are not before this Court and therefore, this Court does not express its opinion. So far as transfer order Annexure-6 is concerned, since Court is of the view that the respondents ought to have sought the permission of this Court in the said writ application, wherein the interim order still continues before transfer of the petitioner, the transfer order as contained in Annexure-6 is quashed with liberty to the respondents to pass appropriate orders in the proceeding in accordance with law as they deem fit and proper. Writ application is allowed with the aforesaid observations. Prakash ( Jayanandan Singh J.)