IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4068 of 2009 Vinod Kumar Sinha, son of Late Sachidanand Sinha, resident of Mohalla- Gaurkshani, P.O.- Buniyadganj, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Gaya, at present working as Statistical Assistant, District Welfare Officer, Gaya. .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Department of Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya, District- Gaya. 5. Deputy Director, Welfare, Magadh Division, Gaya, District- Gaya. .... Respondents. ----------- 02- 18.4.2009 Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No.07/00, dated 6.1.2009 (Annexure-1), whereby the petitioner has been transferred from the present position of District Welfare Office, Gaya, to the District Welfare Office, Aurangabad, and one Shivshakti Kumar has been transferred from Nawada office to Gaya office. 2. The petitioner assails the validity of the order on the ground that it has not been passed by the competent authority. He next submits that such orders are normally passed in June, and he has not completed three 2 years at Gaya. He lastly submits that Shiv Shakti Kumar is a resident of Gaya. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears on a perusal of the impugned order that the same has been passed by the Commissioner of Magadh Division. It, therefore, prima-facie appears that the order has been passed by the appropriate authority. Secondly, the order could not be served on the petitioner because of the strike of non-gazetted employees and has recently been served. We are now close to the month of June and the petitioner will complete three years in June. In so far as the last contention is concerned, we are unable to entertain the same because Shiv Shakti Kumar is not a party respondent herein. 4. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/