IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1017 of 2010 BINAY KUMAR SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 03 04/03/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. That the petitioner may have joined the transferred place of posting at Motihari as a dutiful Government servant, shall not absolve the Government of its liability for considering any representation by him with regard to the transfer. It is the specific case of the petitioner that while he has been transferred from Patna to Motihari in a duration of approximately less than two years, others who have remained at Patna for considerable period of time more particularly described in detail at paragraphs- 3 and 4 of the rejoinder to the counter affidavit have been given a favoured treatment by continued posting at Patna for an unreasonably long period of time. It is contended that their continuance was contrary to the Government’s own policy of not allowing a Government servant to continue at his place of posting beyond a maximum period of seven years. 2 If the Government has framed any circulars with regard to transfer and postings, they are meant to be followed by the Government. The authorities cannot choose to follow the circulars when it suits them and to ignore when it is found inconvenient. There has to be unanimous application of the circulars with regard to all who may be covered by it. While failure to transfer such persons continuing at a place beyond the period specified in the circular may not vest a legal right in the petitioner to found a cause of action to demand similar treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless the circular binds the State authorities and they are bound to comply and follow their own circular unless there be valid and cogent reasons sustainable in law for deviation from the same. Otherwise, the action of the authorities in ignoring their own circulars is vitiated by arbitrariness and discriminatory which may create a legal cause of action. Let the petitioner file his representation making full disclosure of the hostile discrimination being meted out to him and his perceived grievance of the respondents violating their own administrative 3 circulars, which is then required to be considered and disposed by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion or findings but has only discussed the claim of the petitioner for appropriate consideration by the respondents in accordance with law. The writ application stands disposed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)