IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17167 of 2009 1. GAUTAM RAM S/O LATE LANGTU RAM R/O VILL- PAKARI, NAROTTAM, P.O- SATJORA BAZAR, P.S- PANAPUR, DISTT- SARAN AT CHAPRA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR PRIMARY EDUCATION HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIECTOR, GOVT. OF BIHAR 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, SARAN AT CHAPRA ----------- 2. 04.02.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner was transferred to and joined at Chapra in Saran on 3.10.2008 in the office of District Superintendent of Education. By the impugned order dated 22.9.2009 he has been shifted to the office of District Inspectress of School at Chapra itself. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order suffers from abdication of authority by Regional Deputy Director of Education (hereinafter referred to as the RDDE) and has been passed at the behest of the District Magistrate who has no jurisdiction and which alone vitiates the order. He next urges that if the transfer order was to be made other than in June the departmental circular requires approval of the next higher authority above the RDDE and that the circular further provided for minimum duration of three years at a place of posting before which a person cannot be transferred. Others have remained at a place of their posting for 16 years when the petitioner has been discriminated. The order of transfer states that it was passed on administrative grounds. This Court may have interfered on the ground that it was at the behest of the District Magistrate. But 2 the fact remains that the petitioner has been transferred from one office to another within the limits of Chapra itself. He cannot be said to have been prejudiced or be suffering inconvenience because of what he alleges the present transfer at a very short interval. The grounds are administrative. In 2005 (6) SCC 454 (ONGC Ltd Vrs Sendhabhai Vastram Patel & ors) it has been held at Paragraph 23 that:- “23.It is now well settled that the High Courts and the Supreme Court while exercising their equity jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution as also Article 136 thereof may not exercise the same in appropriate cases. While exercising such jurisdiction, the superior courts in India may not strike down even a wrong order only because it would be lawful to do so. A discretionary relief may be refused to be extended to the appellant in a given case although the Court may find the same to be justified in law. ((See S.D.S.Shipping (P) Ltd. V. Jay Container Services Co. (P) Ltd. 6)” Transfer and posting are matters for the employer to decide based on its own requirement and before the Court can interfere each case shall have to be decided on its own facts. In the facts of the present case this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the order of transfer on the aforesaid ground simpliciter. If others have illegally remained at a place contrary to government policy Article 14 does not operate in the negative to enable the petitioner to seek a direction from the Court to the respondents for perpetuating the illegality by allowing him similar treatment. Order of transfer can be interfered only if it is in violation of any statutory provision, mala fide etc. An administrative circular does not vest a legal right to question a 3 transfer in a court of law. It stands settled that such administrative circular only vests a claim to file a representation thereunder before the authority. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. This application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)