IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1838 of 2009 JAWAHARLAL SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 5.2.2009 Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and J.C. to S.C.VIII for the State. There is no reason as to why the petitioner was sought to be disturbed from his present place of posting at Patna within a span of three months. The petitioner was transferred from Pandaul to Patna on 30.6.2008 and had taken charge of the post on 1.7.2008. While the petitioner was working at Patna he has been again asked by the impugned order to go back to Pandaul, inasmuch as the entire order of transfer dated 30.6.2008, an order of chain transfer, has been cancelled by the Rural Works Department. This Court in fact had considered the same transfer order in respect of another person in C.W.J.C.No. 16382/2008 which was disposed of by an order dated 9.1.2009 by quashing the transfer order holding that once the earlier order of transfer dated 30.6.2008 had already been worked out and has been implemented there 2 was no question of staying the operation of such order of transfer. To that extent the Government notification dated 3.10.2008 had already been quashed in relation to the petitioner of that case, namely, Satyendra Ray. There being no difference on this factual aspect and the matter relating to the same notification of transfer, this Court would also quash the impugned order of transfer of the petitioner sending him back to Pandaul and accordingly, to that extent the prayer made by the petitioner must be allowed. That however will not be an end of the matter. In this case this Court finds that the petitioner was transferred at Pandaul only on 29.6.2007 and had remained there merely for one year. There is a Government decision of 24.10.1981 which lays down the general policy of transfer and posting of a government servant in which tenure of such a person is ordinarily fixed for a period of three years. This Court is not in a position to understand as to what was the reason of premature transfer of the 3 petitioner from Pandual to Patna on 30.6.2008 within one year and whether the procedure envisaged in the Government decision of general transfer and posting were followed in the case of the petitioner. In that view of the matter the Secretary of the Department of Rural Development Works Department is directed to examine the case of the petitioner and if it is found that such transfer of the petitioner from Pandaul to Patna dated 30.6.2008 was not in keeping with the policy decision of transfer and posting of the Government, he would be at liberty to place the matter before the Establishment Committee and in case the Establishment Committee is of the opinion that the order of the transfer in favour of the petitioner dated 30.6.2008 was itself, it will make appropriate recommendation to the State Government for a fresh order of transfer of the petitioner for relegating him to his old place of posting as it any other suitable place. The ultimate decision in this respect of the State Government shall be final. On the other hand, if it is found by the 4 Secretary of the Department that the order of transfer of petitioner dated 30.6.2008 was valid and in accordance with law as also as per the policy of the Government, the petitioner will be allowed to continue on the post at Patna in terms of the notification dated 30.6.2008 without any hindrance. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/