IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12182 of 2011 Sharda Nand Chaturvedi, son of late Sri Shiva Dhar Chaturvedi, resident of Village – Harigaon, P S – Jagdishpur, District – Bhojpur (Ara). Versus 1. The State of Bihar . 2. The Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Minor Irrigation, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Minor Irrigation, Government of Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. The Coordinator, Tube-well Project, Department of Water Resources, Minor Irrigation, Government of Bihar, Bisheshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. The Chief Engineer (South), Tube Well Project, Department of Water Resources, Minor Irrigation, Government of Bihar, Sekhpura, Patna-14. 6. The Superintending Engineer, Department of Water Resources, Minor Irrigation, Tube Well Circle, Arrah (Bhojpur). 7. The Executive Engineer, Department of Water Resources, Minor Irrigation, Tube Well Division, Ara (Bhojpur). ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary. For the State : Mr. Vikas Kumar, AC to AG. ------ 02. 05.8.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Annexure-6 is the order of transfer of the petitioner who happens to be a Pump Operator, initially posted at Ara. For administrative reasons he has been shifted to Mohania. This order is dated 18.4.2011 which has been passed by the Chief Engineer, South, Water Resources Department, Minor Irrigation, Government of Bihar. Petitioner assails the order of transfer on the ground that it is in teeth of the circular issued by the State Government on 3rd June, 2009, which is Annexure-7 to the writ application. He contends that since this circular has been issued in exercise 2 of power drawn from the Rules of Executive Business, it has binding effect upon the State and no breach thereof ought to be tolerated. Attention of the Court has been specially drawn to Sub Clause-(1) as well as Clause (4)(Gha) of Clause -2 of the said circular. Clause 2 (1) deals with the basic factum that no transfer is going to be effected except in the month of June in that particular year. Though on grant of promotion, in the interest of work or for administrative reasons such transfers can be made but it should be made at least one notch higher by an authority who happens to be the controlling authority of the employee. Submission of the petitioner based on the circular is that since the Chief Engineer had decided to issue the order, it should have been approved by the next senior man over and above the Chief Engineer. He fails to identify as to who that senior authority would be. On the basis of a plain reading of Clause 2 (1) such an interpretation would lead to absurdity because the object of such a circular is to put a kind of restraint on the power of controlling authority to effect transfer as a matter of course in any other month except June. Under certain circumstances, indicated in that Clause, power obviously is vested in the superior authority who is supposed to apply himself to the issue at his level. Therefore, it is kind of check and balance on the power of transfer which is generally vested in the controlling authority. 3 Admitted position is that the Chief Engineer is not the controlling authority of the petitioner who happens to be a tube-well operator. The maximum level to which the petitioner can claim as to who happens to be his controlling authority is Executive Engineer. Obviously the Chief Engineer is many notches higher than the at least the next superior authority and superior authority means over and above the controlling authority. Since the order of transfer contained in Annexure-6 is at the level of the Chief Engineer and it says that it is for the administrative reasons, it in no way hits Clause 2(1) of the said circular. Coming to the interpretation which is required to be given to Clause 4(1)(Gha) the contention of the counsel that there ought to have been a reason given to the petitioner before the order of transfer was effected, also seems to be a misplaced stand taken by him. Clause 4(1)(Gha) talks of the situation where transfer has to be effected for other administrative reasons. The reasons could be one to many, which may not be required to be expanded or explained but obviously it has connotation to mean that a situation which may have been created partially by an employee or the exigencies beyond the routine kind of deployment of an employee. Since the case of the petitioner does not arise from such an exigency, the question of giving him reasons or opportunity also does not arise. Besides the two submissions there are no 4 contentions which could establish any legal infirmity in the order of transfer. If that be so, the order of transfer is not required to be interfered with. Writ therefore is dismissed. If the petitioner has not joined the transferred post, he must do so immediately. Failure on his part may entail further action by the respondents. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)