IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16794 of 2008 MD.MANZOOR ALAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 13.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Dr. Amrendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel submits that he wishes to file an intervention application on behalf of person who had joined after the transfer of the petitioner from Patna. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, this Court does not consider it necessary to allow the intervention application. The petitioner, who is an Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department, was transferred from Muzaffarpur to Patna on 29.6.2007. He is aggrieved by his early retransfer on 17.6.2008 from Patna to Gaya. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that quite apart from the issue of a fresh transfer within one year of the previous transfer, the name of the petitioner did not even find place in the original transfer ordered on 17.6.2008 when his name is sought to be inserted at serial 226 by a correction. He submits that the action of the Respondents are malafide inasmuch as even though he has not even completed one year at Patna, those who were transferred from Patna to Gaya after completion of more than three years at Patna have been sent back from Gaya to Patna as being surplus. These issues are sought to be raised in the rejoinder 2 to the counter affidavit more particularly at Annexure-9 where the name of four such persons finds place. Learned counsel for the State submits from paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit that transfer of the petitioner was necessitated on account of creation of a new zone at Gaya and the request by the Chief Engineer, Gaya. The petitioner was, therefore, transferred in the interest of State work and that there was no malafide intention in the same. The Courts have repeatedly been reluctant to interfere with the orders of transfer unless there be violation of statutory rules or action per se is malafide on the face of it. Normally, this Court may question an order of transfer made within one year as stability in the Government service to enable an employee to give his best is a factor, but once the State places the ground for such early transfer it shall not be the jurisdiction of the Court to interfere with the same. This is for the administrator to decide best which employee is required at which place, at what point of time, but, nonetheless the employer is required to act uniformly and evenhandedly. If the petitioner alleges in his rejoinder to the counter affidavit by naming certain persons that they had completed more than three years of posting at Patna (but for which there is no pleading) and they have been sent back from Gaya to Patna, thus discriminating against the petitioner, that is an aspect to be appropriately considered by the State authorities keeping in mind the nature of duties of the petitioner and those 3 against whom he alleges discrimination as also other factors with regard to the efficiency of works. The interim order dated 3.12.2008 of status quo is vacated. Nonetheless, since the petitioner had interim orders in his favour, he shall be entitled to the salary for the said period. The writ application is dismissed with observation to examine the grievance of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid discussion in accordance with law within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. . AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)