IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.85 of 1999 ***** Sachidanand Prasad Shrivastava son of Late Dharam Nath Prasad, resident of village Sargatti, P.S. Garkha, District-Saran. …. …. Appellant-Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Deputy Secretary, Government of Bihar, Revenue and Land Reform Department, Patna. 3. The Transport Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur. 5. The Deputy Collector, Eastablishment Vaishali Collectoriate, Hazipur. 6. Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, Assistant District Transport Office, Muzaffarpur. 7. Sri Birendra Kumar Singh, Assistant District Transport Office, Darbhanga. …. …. Respondents/Respondents ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Griyaghey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar No.1, G.P.14 ----------- 3. 21.4.2010. We have heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Griyaghey, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sanjay Kumar No.1, learned counsel for the State. On consent of learned counsel for the parties the appeal is finally heard. In this intra-Court appeal the challenge is to the order dated 17.12.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 4977 of 1997. Be it noted the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the - 2 - Constitution of India challenging his relieving from Revenue Department to Transport Department. The learned Single Judge appreciating the facts has held as under:- “Mr. Arshad Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the decision to transfer the services of the petitioner to the Transport Department was taken by the Government and it was, therefore, not open either to the Collector, Vaishali or to the Transport Commissioner not to absorb him in that department and to send him back to Vaishali Collectorate. Firstly, nothing has been brought to my notice to indicate that the direction to send the petitioner to the Transport Department was pursuant to any decision by the Government what is produced before the Court is a letter issued by the Dy. Secretary in the Government Department. Moreover, as pointed out by the Collector, Vaishali, the petitioner’s services were absorbed in the Vaishali Collectorate on 13.1.1995 itself and, therefore, there was no question of transferring him to the Transport Department as a surplus staff of the Revenue Department. Having heard Mr. Arshad Alam for the petitioner and Mr. G.P.1 for the State and having perused the writ petition and the counter affidavit, I am of the view that no case has been - 3 - made out for any interference by the writ court. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.” Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion there is no error in the order of the learned Single Judge. Be it noted, the appellant is presently working at Collectorate, Hajipur. If there is any gap because of non-joining, the same shall be treated towards continuity in office for which no back wages shall be paid. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Pawan/- (Dipak Misra, CJ) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)