IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14115 of 2010 YOGENDRA PRASAD SINGH s/o late Nawalig Prasad Singh, resident of Muhalla Central Bank Colony,Bhoth Nath Road, P.S. Agamkuna, District- Patna.. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary, Health Department, Bihar, Patna, New Secretariat Vikash Bhawan, Patna. 2. Director-in-Chief, Health Department, Bihar, Patna, New Secretariat Vikash Bhawan, Patna. 3. Sri Nand Kisshore Yadav, Health Minister,Bihar,Patna, New Secretariat,Patna. ----------- 2 8.9.2010 The petitioner was transferred to Additional Primary Health Centre Rambagar Diara Barh,Patna as Health Educator in the year 1995. He was deputed to Patna Medical College Hospital, Patna as Health Educator in the year 2007. In June, his deputation to Patna Medical College Hospital was cancelled. He was reverted to Rambagar Diara from where he has now been transferred to Gokula Paru in the district of Muzaffarpur. He objects to the said transfer mainly on the ground that the transfer order would show that it has been done in consultation with the Minister. Having perused the transfer order , it is apparent that the consultation was with the Minister but the Minister was Minister of Health, which Department has issued the transfer order. There is no wrong in consultation. He secondly submitted that the government had taken a policy decision to revert all Health Educator to their primary place of posting. He submits that this was done only to create vacancies to accommodate 2 some persons. In my view, transfer being an incidence of transfer, petitioner cannot object to his transfer. What happened thereafter is not concerned of the decision. Petitioner then refers to the letter of Superintendent of Patna Medical College Hospital addressed to the Director-in-Chief requesting him not to transfer Health Educators from Patna Medical Colleges Hospital, which is likely to cause dislocation in work as new persons would take considerable time to pick up the work. Be that as it may, it is for the Government to consider that request but surely the petitioner cannot use it as a ground of stay of his transfer. His last contention is that as per transfer policy he has been transferred in June but his transfer order has been issued in August. Let it be noted that , in fact, petitioner was first reverted to his Principal place of posting in June itself and relieved from Patna Medical College Hospital. Having joined his place of posting, he was then transferred by the impugned order , which was passed in August.The rule with regard to transfer being made in June is ordinarily to be followed. It is not a mandatory. It is the administration that has to decide about advisability of transfer. Thus, the writ petition merits no consideration and is dismissed. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) 3