IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10410 of 2010 1. MAHAVIR PRASAD SINGH, S/O LATE RAMCHANDRA SINGH, R/O VILLAGE JAMUAWAN, P.S. KHIZARSARAI, DISTRICT- GAYA. 2. SHEO KUMAR CHOUDHARY, S/O LATE DEVENDRA NARAYAN CHOUDHARY, R/O VILLAGE BHAWANIPUR,P.S. BENIPUR,DISTRICT- GAYA. 3. SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, S/O LATE BRAJENDRA SINGH, R/O VILLAGE DEORAR, P.S. MURIARI,DISTRICT- BALIA (U. P.). 4. ANAND PRAKASH KUJUR, S/O NICOLUS KUJUR, R/O SARNA CHANKI TOLA, BARIARPUR, P.S. BARIARPUR, DISTRICT- RANCHI (JHARKHAND). 5. SYED DONE HAIDAR, S/O SYED ANISUL HASSAN, R/O VILLAGE AURANGABAD SARAIYA, P.S. TILOTHU, DISTRICT- ROHTAS. 6. AJAY PRAKASH SINHA, S/O SHRI KARUN PRAKASH SINHA, R/O VILLAGE VIJAY NAGAR, P.S. HANUMAN NAGAR, DISTRICT- PATNA. ………………. Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,BIHAR,PATNA. 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MUZAFFARPUR. 3. SECRETARY (RESOURCES), DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,BIHAR,PATNA. 4. ADDITIONAL FINANCE COMMISSIONER (EXPENSES), FINANCE DEPARTMENT,BIHAR,PATNA. 5. TREASURY OFFICER, MUZAFFARPUR. 6. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, MUZAFFARPUR. 7. CIRCLE OFFICER,PAROO, MUZAFFARPUR. 8. CIRCLE OFFICER,AURAI, MUZAFFARPUR. 9. CIRCLE OFFICER,GOROUL, MUZAFFARPUR. 10. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SAHEBGANJ, MUZAFFARPUR. …………….. Respondents ----------- 02. 19.07.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for the State. 2 Petitioners’ prayer is for quashing the Order contained in Memo No. 834, dated 29.06.2010, issued by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, whereby they have been transferred from District Treasury, Muzaffarpur to Circle Office, Paroo, Aurai, Goroul and Sahebganj Block, respectively. Transfer Orders have been challenged by the petitioners on the ground that on account of this transfer, their specialized experience in treasury work will be wasted. The petitioners being commerce graduate, they have experience of accounts work and are competent to discharge their duties efficiently at treasury since they belong to cadre of Treasury Clerk, they should not have been transferred from District Treasury to other Offices. On perusal of different documents, annexed with the writ application as well as the statement made in the writ petition, I do not find that on account of impugned transfer Orders, petitioners are going to be affected adversely. It has also not been stated in the writ application that the petitioners’ services were non-transferable or on account of this transfer they are going to suffer 3 monetary loss or loss of seniority. Since no specific case has been made out against the transfer Orders, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned Orders. This application is dismissed. S.K.M. (Mridula Mishra, J.)