IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11470 of 2008 SITARAM SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 04. 08.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was transferred on 06.06.2008 from the office of Joint Agriculture Director (Plant Protection) Bihar, Patna to the office of Deputy Agriculture Director (Plant Protection) Patna Division, Patna. Within days thereafter followed another order of transfer on 13.6.2008 transferring him to the office of the Deputy Agriculture Director (Plant Protection) Kosi Division, Saharsa. He is due for superannuation on 31.1.2009. The contention is that there is no justification for transfer of the petitioner barely six months before his superannuation and within days of his earlier transfer. The government itself had a policy to consider the desirability of not transferring such persons in the last year of their service. Despite the petitioner having filed his representation placing reliance on the same when the respondents did not respond, he has come to this Court. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents that the transfer is for administrative - 2 - reasons. The administrative reasons disclosed in the counter affidavit are that the petitioner has remained posted in Patna for 38 years. There was a police case against him and a departmental proceeding started in the year 1994 which is still pending. If guidelines and circulars regulating transfers have been framed, those who have formulated it are expected to follow the same unless there be reasons for deviation permissible under the circular itself. The circulars are not framed to be followed and ignored at whims and fancies. Whether the petitioner remained in Patna for 38 years or departmental proceedings/F.I.R. were instituted in 1994 are hardly of relevance in 2008 for justifying a transfer and that too within six months of the impending superannuation. Another aspect is that the petitioner was transferred as a part of mass transfer when he along with others were shifted. The impugned order singles him out from this list. There is no explanation for the same except what has been considered above. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is satisfied that the respondents have acted arbitrarily and in complete derogation of their own circulars and instructions without any justifiable reasons for the deviation. - 3 - This Court accordingly orders in terms of the government instructions itself that the order of transfer dated 30.06.2008 is vitiated and is accordingly set aside as also is the consequential order dated 17.06.2008 directing him to hand over charge. Shageer (Navin Sinha, J)