IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1532 of 2009 RAJA RAM MAHTO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4. 25.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner questions the order dated 2.1.2009 cancelling his earlier transfer dated 30.6.2008. There is no pleading in the writ application to the effect that the petitioner has joined the transferred place of posting in pursuance of the order dated 30.6.2008 to enable this Court to hold that the transfer order was thus spent force, not in existence and not amenable to any cancellation by order dated 2.1.2009. If the petitioner had not joined, the transfer order was in existence and there may be no occasion for this Court to interfere with the impugned order dated 2.1.2009. The Respondents in their counter affidavit at paragraph 8 has raised the objection of alternative remedy of appeal. This writ application is disposed with observation that if the petitioner prefers an appeal and raises specific issues on facts with regard to his transfer order dated 30.6.2008 as noticed above, the appeal shall then be decided in accordance with law laid down by this Court in two Bench decisions in 2000(2) PLJR 332 (Smt. Jyotsna Kumari v. State of Bihar & ors.) and 2000(3) PLJR 139 (Mahmood Azam Siddique v. State of Bihar &ors.). AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)