IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1436 of 2001 VIJAY KUMAR Son of Sri Late Ramdeo Bhagat, Resident of Mohalla – Khagzi, PS Biharsharif, District Nalanda … Appellant/Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Registration Department of Government of Bihar, Patna 2. Inspector General of Registration, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. District Registration –cum- Collector, Nalanda 4. District Sub-Registrar, Nalanda at Biharsharif … Respondents/Respondents ----------- 03- 7.7.2009 Heard Mr. Khurshid Alam for the appellant, and learned Assitant Counsel to Standing Counsel no.V. This appeal under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature of Patna, has been preferred by the petitioner of CWJC No.7126 of 2000, which was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court, along with heavy batch of analogous writ petitions, by judgment dated 15.10.2001. 2. The writ petitions related to inter-district transfer of permanent Clerks of the Registration Department. The learned single Judge exhaustively examined the provisions of law and, inter alia, interpreting Paragraph 23-A of the Bihar Registration Manual, observed that some of the provisions relied on by the petitioner related to tenure of the clerks, rather than the cadre. Merely because it also refers to transfers “in the same district” does not mean that the clerks have district cadre. Ordinarily a clerk should not be transferred until he completes tenure of five years unless it becomes necessary to transfer him on shorter interval in public interest as specifically mentioned in Paragraph 23-A. The learned single Judge concluded - 2 - with the following observations :- “18. Before I conclude the discussion it would only be fair to the respondents to mention that the reasons for transferring the permanent clerks to another district, inter alia, are said to be their long stay in the same district making them vulnerable to influence in the working of the office, inefficiency and public interest. The registration clerks had failed to perform their duties upto the required standard resulting in piling up of documents pending completion of the registration process. The government accordingly decided to transfer such of the clerks who had stayed in particular districts for more than 10 years in public interest. In the above premises, I doubt, if it would be appropriate to interfere with the impugned orders on technicalities even if they were on the side of the petitioners.” 3. The Privy Council has observed in Alexandre vs.The Ottoman Bank (AIR 1930 Privy Council 118) that transfer is an essential condition of service unless displaced by the terms of the contract, and failure to carry out a lawful order of transfer can result in dismissal from service. The impugned orders of transfer were passed on 30.6.2000. In that view of the matter, the cause has become infructuous. 4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Jyoti Saran ) mrl