IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11759 of 2010 1. MITHILESH KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI SURESH PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL.- GOLMA, P.S. PATARGHAT, DISTT.- SAHARSA--Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, SCHEDULE CASTES & SCHEDULE TRIBE WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY, BACKWARD & MOST BACKWARD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DIRECTOR, SCHEDULE CASTES & SCHEDULE TRIBE WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (HEADQUARTERS), SCHEDULE CASTE & SCHEDULE TRIBE WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE DIVISIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, WELFARE DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 7. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, PATNA----Respondents ----------- 3 14.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is seeking parity in a matter of transfer effected by the respondents which has been notified on 5.7.2010 by S.C.S.T. Welfare Department. The order is annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. The stand of learned counsel representing the petitioner is that after bifurcation of the Welfare Department into various other departments there was no occasion for S.C. S.T. Welfare Department to exercise authority over the school relating to backward class community because that school would be governed by Backward Class Welfare Department and the notification in this regard has been brought on record by the petitioner as annexure-2. Her contention is that the power of transfer does not vest in S. C. S.T. Welfare Department any more and the petitioner could not be transferred or included in the said notification. In yet identical matter of Baidya Nath Yadav such - 2 - an order of transfer was challenged in CWJC No. 15085 of 2010. The High Court after hearing the counsels for the State and the petitioner passed the order dated 27.10.2010 which is annexure-6 to the rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. After having taken note of various notifications issued by the State Government, the Court came to a considered opinion that S.C. S.T. Welfare Directorate had no authority to transfer the said petitioner to an S.C.S.T. school. The case of the petitioner is identical to the case of Baidya Nath Yadav. The Court is informed that the order of the High Court where the transfer order was quashed has been given effect to vide notification dated 29.11.2010 issued by the concerned authority, a copy of which has been produced before this Court. Learned counsel for the State submitted that this order should not be treated as a precedent and that order of transfer is the routine order of transfer and the Court should not exercise its jurisdiction. Submission or the stand of the State is difficult to accept because it is not supported by any law or logic. The reasons were there for the Court to interfere in the case of Baidya Nath Yadav and infirmity pointed out by the Court also exists. In so far as the present petitioner is concerned he cannot be treated differently in an identical situation. Therefore the decision rendered in the case of Baidya Nath Yadav will govern the case of - 3 - present petitioner. The impugned order in so far as it relates to the present petitioner is quashed. This writ application is allowed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)