IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4457 of 2009 BIMAL KISHORE MALLICK Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 22.5.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. In this writ application, the petitioner has assailed his order dated 2.3.2009 whereby and whereunder the Regional deputy Director of Education, Purnea Division, Purnea has transferred the petitioner to Mahila Prathmik Shikchhak Shikchha Mahavidyalaya, Musapar in the district of Katihar. The grievance of the petitioner in this regard is that since the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Purnea has referred to certain direction of the Deputy Director of Secondary Education (in short RDDE) contained in letters no. 796 & 780 both dated 25.2.2009 as also certain proceedings in Bihar Bidhan Parishad at the instance of Md. Ajimuddin, MLC, the said transfer order must be held to be malafide. Mr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would also submit that the very fact that the 2 RDDE, Purnea in the transfer order had made certain insertion by hand for relieving the petitioner with effect from 2.3.2009 the date on which such transfer order was issued that by itself is reflective of a malafide design of the authority. As a matter of fact, the plea of the malafide raised by Mr. Chaudhary does not fit in with the representation filed by him to the same authority namely RDDE, Purnea on 7.3.2009 (Annexure-7). In the said representation, not a word has been whispered about any malafide design of the RDDE, Purnea and therefore, the plea of malafide design must be and is hereby rejected. A question still would be as to whether the transfer order of the petitioner was in public interest? The transfer order talks of either a direction given by the office of the Director, Secondary Education, Purnea or some proceeding in Bihar Bidhan Parishad. Counsel for the State in this context would point out that the petitioner has been continuing for number of years at around Kishanganj and he does not want to go to 3 Katihar. The counsel for the State would further submit that the petitioner admittedly is an employee of divisional cadre and therefore, his transfer can be made within the cadre in any of the district either in Purnea Araria or Katihar barring Kishanganj where he has largely continued to work in his tenure of his service. This Court would find that the petitioner had some grievance with regard to his transfer from Kishanganj and that is how when he was working in the office of District Superintendent of Education, Kishanganj he was sought to be transferred in the office of District Education and Training Institute, Srinagar (Purnea) on 27.12.2008 and that transfer order being again in the vicinity of Kishanganj was sought to be interfered at the instance of the Director, Secondary Education who has got his such decision communicated through his Deputy Director by two letters both dated 25.2.2009. It is thus clear that the RDDE on his own accord has not transferred the petitioner. The role of Director, Secondary Education 4 cannot be ruled out in the transfer of a ministerial employee of Education department from one cadre to another, inasmuch as, the said Director, Secondary Education is the Cadre Controlling Authority and the Head of the Department under 1973/74 Rules. Therefore, if the petitioner has still any grievance as with regard to his transfer, he ought to have moved the aforesaid cadre controlling authority, namely, Director, Secondary Education who is the most appropriate and competent authority to decide the issue of transfer of the petitioner. That having been not done, this Court would direct the petitioner to file a representation within a period of one week from today to the said Director of Secondary Education who must decide such representation of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of filing of such representation. If the Director, Secondary Education would find that in the service tenure of the petitioner that the petitioner has largely continued in or around Kishanganj, he would definitely transfer the petitioner from the district of Kishanganj to either in Purnea or Katihar or to any vacant 5 place in any other district in the divisional cadre of the petitioner and if the petitioner has not completed a total period of five years in the Kishanganj district in his service career and if there is no administrative exigency in continuance of the petitioner in Kishanganj district, he may direct for continuance of the petitioner at any place even in Kishanganj district. Since the petitioner is claiming to be continuing on the post from which he was transferred, let such transfer order be not given effect to for a period of this one month or passing of an order by the Director, Secondary Education, whichever is earlier. With the aforementioned observations/ direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)