IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1402 of 2011 Rajendra Prasad, son of late Tuphani Ram Prasad, resident of village + P.O. Sasannusa, P S – Kuchai Kote, District – Gopalaganj, posted as Jan Sewak cum Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Majhauliya, P.O. + P.S. Vijaypur, District - Gopalganj Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Gopalganj. 3. Deputy Development Commissioner, Gopalganj. 4. The Sub Divisional Officer Hathua, District – Gopalganj. 5. District Superintendent of Education, District –Gopalganj. 6. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hathua, District – Gopalganj. 7. The Block Development Officer, Vijaypur, District – Gopalganj. 8. Block Education Extension Officer, Vijaypur, District – Gopalganj. 9. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Majhawaliya, P.S. + P.O. Vijaypur, District – Gopalganj. 10. Smt. Pappi Rai, Panchayat teacher, Piprahi Primary School, P.S. Vijaypur, District – Gopalganj. ----------- 03. 12.7.2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of a recent decision of a Division Bench rendered in the case of Anand Swaroop vs. State of Bihar, 2011 (2) PLJR 1021 submits that the petitioner has a right to rejoin the post after having been released from custody. Since there is some resistance on behalf of the respondents, petitioner has filed the writ application for a suitable direction. Learned Additional Advocate General No.4 submits that he has no quarrel with the proposition of the Division Bench as such, but he has some reservation on the assertion of the petitioner that he has a right to rejoin the post at the place he was last posted when he was taken in judicial custody. According to him, there is no declaration of such a kind in the 2 order of the Division Bench. He also submits that the respondents are more than willing to permit the petitioner to rejoin but at a new place keeping in view the circumstances under which his last posting led to institution of a criminal case as well as detention in custody in this regard. To that extent the stand of the learned senior counsel for the State seems to be correct. The Division Bench only states that the employee has a right to rejoin but not rejoin at the place of posting. He is entitled to a posting where ever the respondents feel. The petitioner should be suitably placed for administrative exigency. In view of the stand taken by the State, let the State allow the petitioner to join on the place having been offered to him to join. Petitioner would be obliged to do so at the earliest. Failure may entail own consequence. Writ stands allowed with the above observation. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)