IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14594 of 2011 Kapildeo Prasad S/O Late Bisheshwar Prasad resident of village+ P.O. Sonsa, P.S.Rahul.District-Nalanda. …………. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through its Secretary to Govt. Minor Irrigation Department, New Secretariat Building Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The Deputy Secretary to Govt. Minor Irrigation Department, New Secretariat, Building, Bailey Road, Patna. ……….. Respondents ---------------------------------- 2 06.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by his transfer as contained in memo no. 3700 dated 30.6.2011 issued by the Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar by which the petitioner has been transferred from his present place of posting as Junior Engineer from Nalkup Division, Biharsharif to Minor Irrigation Division, Katihar. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per guide lines of the transfer, the petitioner should not have been transferred from one Zone to another before completing a period of six years which has not expired, since he was posted at Biharsharif only on 03.3.2010.He further submits that the petitioner is suffering from serious ailments and earlier also taking into consideration his ill health, the department had adjusted him on a post at Barh.He also submits that it amounts to mid-term transfer and is arbitrary since no administrative reason has been assigned for such transfer. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the office order of the Minor Irrigation Department dated 20.6.2000, which is with regard to transfer. He specially relied on clause 6 and 7 of the said office order and contends that within six years, he should not have 2 been transferred from one Zone to another. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contends that the said office order in no way restricts the authorities in transferring the petitioner even though he may not have completed six years and the term mentioned in the office order is only the maximum period for which any person can be posted at one place within one zone and in one Zone as per rule. He further submits that the petitioner having been transferred from Biharsharif to Katihar shall not be harassed for the reason that Katihar has a full fledge medical college where the petitioner can have better treatment. He also submits that the transfer order of the petitioner is not in isolation rather he is among twenty five Junior Engineers who have been transferred as per established policy of the Government by order dated 30.6.2011 which cannot be challenged for any legal infirmity or jurisdictional incompetence. Transfer being an incidence of service cannot be objected by any employee. However, the right of transfer, especially for a Government employee, by the State Government/Department, even though being an inherent power, its exercise should withstand and come clean on the touchstone of fairness and reasonableness. Such transfer orders having been affected in a routine manner should not be by way of punitive action against the concerned employee without following the procedure prescribed in law. The Courts have also consistently held that judicial review in transfer matters is very limited and it is only to be seen whether the order of transfer is against any rule/law or against the principles of fairness and reasonableness and such transfer orders are normally not interfered with. 3 In the present case, after considering the rival contentions, this Court feels such office order has relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, does not debar the State/Department from transferring persons, who have not completed six years in one zone. Moreover, such office orders, in the opinion of this Court cannot be mandatory and can at best be only directory in nature. With regard to the other contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner also, this Court does not find any merit in the same calling for interference in the order under challenge. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that the petitioner has a right for being considered for an alternate posting or` for his stay of his transfer, as provided in the rule namely, the guidelines as contained in letter no. 881 dated 3.6.2009 , issued under the signature of the Principal Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat Department, Government of Bihar. Be that as it may, it goes without saying that if the petitioner approaches, the concerned authority for re-consideration of his transfer either to another place or for stay at the place where he is presently posted, the same may be considered by the concerned respondent objectively in accordance with the relevant rules as well as taking into consideration the genuine hardship` which the petitioner is facing. The State should as far as practicable take into consideration the human problems and ensure that its employees are posted at a place where they are able to discharge their duties without any dissatisfaction. This is also healthy for the administration as well as the public interest. 4 With the aforementioned observation the writ petition stands disposed off. sudha (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)