IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.20692 of 2010 1. Mustaque Ahmad, son of Md. Hanif, resident of village Khodai Bagh, P.S. Khaira, District Chapra. At present posted as Assistant Urdu Translator at B.D.O. office, Hanterganj, District Chatra (Jharkhand). 2. Md. Ibrar Ahmad, son of late Abdul Sattar, resident of Mohalla Sultanganj, Mewa Shah Lane, P.S. Sultanganj, District Patna at present posted as Urdu Typist Block Office Jaridih, District Bokaro. 3. Md. Neyaz Hassan, son of late Sarfuddin, resident of mohalla Hajrat Sain, P.S. Dhanruwa, District Patna at present posted Udru Typist S.D.O. Office Chas, District Bokaro………………………………………………………….…Petitioners Versus 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, New Delhi. 2. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Rajbhasha Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna (Urdu). 3. The Director, Rajbhasha Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Special Executive Officer, Home (Special) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand (Ranchi)…………….Respondents ----------- For Petitioners: Mr. Md. Sufiyan, Advocate For Union of India: Mr. Gopesh Kumar, C.G.C. For State of Bihar: Mr. Gautam Bose, A.A.G. 8 For State of Jharkhand: Mr. Satyavarta Verma, Advocate 2. 20.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioners have filed this writ application challenging the orders as contained in Annexure-1 series by which 2 request of petitioners for their transfer to the State of Bihar in Urdu Directorate has been refused. The sole ground on which the said orders have been challenged is that no reasons have been disclosed in the said orders. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon an order passed by this Court in CWJC NO. 16167 of 2010 by which the writ application was allowed and similar order was quashed and the Home Department, Government of Bihar was directed to seek fresh concurrence from the Director (Urdu) in the matter of petitioners. He submits that the order passed in the case of those petitioners is also identical to the case of the present petitioners and, therefore, the same should also be quashed and the matter should be remitted back to the respondents for fresh consideration, as has been passed in that case. After going though the order passed by this Court in the said case, it appears that this Court found that in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, no 3 grounds were disclosed for refusal of such concurrence by the Director (Urdu). Hence, this Court disposed of the writ application with a direction to the Home Department, Government of Bihar to seek concurrence from the Director (Urdu) and to request him that if he decides to refuse concurrence, he may disclose reasons for the same. However, in the present case, counter affidavit has been filed in which specific reasons have been disclosed in paragraphs 6 and 7 thereof. In paragraph 6 it is stated that concurrence of the State of Jharkhand as contained in Annexure-4 is conditional and it clearly shows that petitioners and others will be relieved only if the employees in equal number are received from the State of Bihar in the State of Jharkhand, failing which they shall be relieved only if the posts are filled up through appointment. It is also stated that not a single Urdu employee has filed any petition for his transfer from the State of Bihar to the State of Jharkhand. As such, obviously, the State of Bihar could not provide replacement of 4 petitioners to the State of Jharkhand. Hence, in view of the conditional concurrence of the State of Jharkhand, it is not possible to accede to the request of petitioners for their transfer to the State of Bihar from the State of Jharkhand. As reasons disclosed in the counter affidavit are specific and cogent, this Court does not find it necessary to quash these communications as contained in Annexure-1 series merely for the purpose of same reasons to be inserted in the letters and to be issued afresh rejecting concurrence to transfer of petitioners. The writ application is, therefore, dismissed. If the petitioners are able to locate any employee of the State of Bihar, who can replace them in the State of Jharkhand, they may apply afresh for their mutual transfer. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)