IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17162 of 2009 1. AMRESH KUMAR SINGH S/OLATE SHAMBHU SHARAN SINGH, R/O VILL- NARKATIYA P.S- DHAKA, DISTT- EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3. DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, INDIRA BHAWAN, RAM CHARITAR SINGH PATNA, PATNA 4. DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, VAISHALI 5. DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, MUZAFFARPUR For the Petitioner: Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Adv. Mr. Santosh Kr. Singh, S.C.22. Shailendra Kumar Singh, A.C. to S.C.22 with CWJC No.1043 of 2010 1. SURAJ NARAYAN PASWAN S/O LATE KATAW R/O VILL UGHARA, P.S.BAHADURPUR,DISTT-DARBHANGA 2. BASUKI NANDAN PODDAR S/O RAMAVATAR PODDAR R/O VILL SAKAPURA, P.S.BAKARI,DISTT-BEGUSARAI 3. MADAN SINGH S/O BIKRAM SINGH R/O VILL DARIHAT, P.S.DARIHAT, DISTT-ROHTAS 4. SHAMBHU KUMAR CHOUDHARY S/O DEVI KANT CHOUDHARY R/O VILL PINARUAH, PS.KAMTAUL,DISTT-DARBHANGA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA 3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA 4. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 5. DIRECTOR , I.C.D.S. GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA 6. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER DARBHANGA,DISTT-DARBHANGA with CWJC No.2189 of 2010 1. SHYAM SUNDAR SINGH S/O SRI SARJU PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL.- BITTHHALPUR, P.S.- JAMUI, DISTT.- JAMUI 2. ASHOK KUMAR S/O LATE JUGAL KISHORE SHARMA R/O VILL.- BAGHI, P.S.- SUVIDNAGAR, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SCHEME, GOVT. OF BIHAR, INDIRA BHAVAN, RAM CHARITA PATH, PATNA 4. DIST. PROGRAMME OFFICER, JAMUI 2 5. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, LAXMIPUR, JAMUI 6. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, CHAKAI, JAMUI ----------- 2/ 10/02/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The challenge in these applications is to the order of transfer dated 18.6.2009 on the ground that the cadre is divisional and, therefore, the petitioners cannot be transferred outside their cadre. Reliance is placed on two government orders dated 29.3.1992 and 13.7.2006 to urge that the Government has cautioned against inter divisional transfers from one cadre to another which may affect seniority also. The posts which the petitioners hold are in the divisional cadre posts and there is no State Cadre in respect thereof. Reliance is further placed on certain orders of this Court where in pursuance of representations filed such transfers have been revoked or where this Court has quashed such orders of transfer. Learned Additional Advocate General III, submits that he has instructions to state that the Government is considering formulating a State cadre and that he has further instructions to state that the seniority of the petitioners, as existing at present, shall be fully maintained in accordance with their date of appointment and other service conditions 3 irrespective of whichever division they are sent to, in accordance with law and the present order of transfer shall not prejudicially affect their seniority or salary in any manner. The orders of this Court relied upon on behalf of the petitioners proceed on the simple premise of a divisional cadre without furthermore when no stand on behalf of the State such as the present was presented or considered. In fact, the issue of loss of seniority etc. does not find any consideration in the earlier orders of this Court. If that be so it becomes a challenge to an order of transfer simplicitor. In C.W.J.C. No.12501 of 2009 and analogous cases while permitting the petitioners to represent it had been observed that the writ petition raised several questions of law which do not appear to have been raised, considered or decided in C.W.J.C. No.11201 of 2009 with regard to the scope for interference in transfer matters under the writ jurisdiction. It is trite law that a statement made at the Bar by the Advocate General binds the State Government, more so, when it is based on Government instructions. There is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the impugned order of transfer. In view 4 of the nature of the controversy and a belated positive stand on behalf of the respondent State, this Court directs that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned order, the operation of which shall be effective in accordance with the time schedules provided in the Bihar Service Code in respect of the orders of transfer from today. Learned Additional Advocate General III very fairly submits that if any person aggrieved and named in the order dated 18.6.2009 represents, he is required to be considered in light of the present order without him having to obtain separate orders from this Court. The writ application stands disposed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)