IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7224 of 2010 1. SHYAM SUNDER PRASAD YADAV S/O LATE LAXMI NARAIN YADAV R/O VILL.- MADHOPUR RAUSHAN (BHISA), P.S.- DUMRA, DISTT.- SITAMARHI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (NORTH), MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, MUZAFFARPUR 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, SITAMARHI DIVISION AT SITAMARHI 5. THE DIRECTOR, PERSONNEL, BIHAR CO-OPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK, PATNA, BUDDHA MARG, PATNA 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, BEGUSARAI DIVISION AT BEGUSARAI ----------- 2. 30.07.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. On 24.7.2008 the petitioner was transferred from Begusarai to Sitamarhi. On 16.1.2009 he was transferred from Sitamarhi back to Begusarai. He came to this Court in CWJC No. 18624 of 2009. It was noticed that the grounds for the transfer was administrative but in view of an enquiry report dated 3.12.2008 the grounds were found to be factually non existent and recommendations were made for annulment of the transfer on 20.1.2009 and onwards. This Court disposed off the application in the light of recommendation for annulment of the transfer to take a final decision directing the order impugned to be kept in abeyance till then. The impugned order dated 16.3.2010 has now been passed holding that Sitamarhi being the home town of the petitioner in light of the government circular dated 3.6.2009 he cannot continue at Sitamarhi and he must comply the order of transfer dated 16.1.2009. The counter affidavit is only a reiteration of the recitals in the impugned order with regard to the circular dated 3.6.2009. Learned counsel for the State however urged that such a provision restricting posting in the home district existed earlier also and the recital was not anything new. The lis before this court was an order of transfer on administrative ground culminating in to order dated 16.1.2009. Once the administrative ground was found to be non existent in an enquiry report and recommendations had been made to annul the transfer this Court has no hesitation in holding that the only conclusion possible is for annulment of the order of transfer dated 16.1.2009. This Court is further satisfied that the respondents are not justified in urging fresh grounds in the present proceeding which were already available to them when the order dated 16.1.2009 came to be passed but which they did not consider necessary for purposes of the order at that point of time. The order dated 16.3.2010 is accordingly set aside. The petitioner stands relegated to his posting by the order dated 24.7.2008. After the petitioner is permitted to join at Sitamarhi he shall remain fully amenable to any fresh administrative powers of transfer and posting by the respondents under administrative circulars regulating the same. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)