IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15765 of 2008 1. Lalu Paswan Son of Shri Ram Surat Paswan, Resident of Vilage Sahdullahpur, Police Station Lalganj, District Vaishali. At present posted as Block Eduction Officer, Bodh Gaya, District Gaya 2. Lakshaman Singh, Son of Shri Chandrika Singh, Resident of Village Prashtampur, Post Office Karhansi, Police Station- Natwar, District Rohtas. At Present posted as Block Eduction Officer, Benipatti, Madhubani 3. Bimal Maria Lakra, Wife of Sri Sarfin Masih, Resident of Leprosy Mission Hospital, Karhanshi Ramna, Post Office Ramna, Police Station Mithanpura, District Muzaffarpur. At Present posted as Block Eduction Officer, Madanpur, Aurangabad 4. Lakhendra Paswan Son of Late Pragash Paswan, Resident of Village & Post Office Karja, Police Station Karja, District Muzffarpur. At Present posted as Deputy Superintendent of Educaton, Aurangabad 5. Briksh Bhuiyan, Son of Late Prabhu Bhuiyan, resident of Village and Post Office Dhamaul, Police Station-Dhamaul, District Nawada. At Present posted as Block Education Officer, Chanan, Lakhisarai 6. Kedar Prasad Rajak, Son of late Rilo Rajak, Resident of Village Hirodih, Post Office Chamotha, Police Station Rajauli, District Nawada. At Present posted as Block Education Officer, Ramgarh Chowk, Lakhisarai 7. Raghu Nandan Chaudhary, Son of Shri Chhotan Ram, Resident of Vilage and Post Office-Hisua, Police Station Hisua, District Nawada. At Present posted as Block Education Officer, Raghopur, Vaishali Petitioners For the Petitioners : M/s Tej Bahadur Singh, Sr. Advocate Ram Kishore Singh & Brajesh Kumar, Advocates For the Intervenor : M/s Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr.Advocate & Rakesh Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr J.P.Karn, AAG 9 -------- WITH CWJC No.16202 of 2008 2 1. Siya Sharan Prasad, Son of Late Fakira Das, Resident of Sathopur, Post Office Maghra, Police Station Deep Nagar, District Nalanda. Presently posted as Block Education Extension Officer, Maker, District Chapra (Saran) 2. Raj Kumar Manjhi Son of Ram Balak Manjhi, Resident of Village + Post Office Khabsinia Gaura, Police Station Baniapur, District Chapra (Saran) 3. Ishwan Chandra Sahu, Son of Late Ramawatar Sah, Resident of Village + Post Office Basuki Bihari, Police Station Madhwapur, District Madhubani. Presently posted as Block Education Extension Officer, Nawanagar, District Buxar 4. Ram Sevak Ram, Son of Late Sukdeo Ram, resident of Village Fuhri, P.O. Kharua, Police Station Rahika, District Madhubani Presently posted as Block Education Extension Officer, Parsa, District Chapra (Saran) 5. Nirmala Sinha, Wife of Mr Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, Resident of Vilage-West of Prabhunath Nagar, Yamunapuri, Post office Chapra, Police Station- Moffasil, District Saaran Presently posted as Block Education Extension Officer, Block Dharpokhri, District Bhojpur Petitioners VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar 2. Principal Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna Respondents in two writ petitions For the Petitioners : M/s Tej Bahadur Singh, Sr. Advocate & Brajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : M/s P.K.Verma, AAG 11 & S.R.Sharan, JC to AAG 11 -------- WITH CWJC No.16997 of 2008 Nagendra Singh son of Sri Deo Raj Singh resident of village Darihat Police Station Darihat, District Rohtas, at present working as Block Education Officer, Bodh Gaya, District Gaya Petitioner 3 4 08.12.2008 VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar 2.Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Gaya. Respondents. --------- For the Petitioner : M/s Y.C.Verma, Sr Advocate, Arvind Prasad Singh, Rabindra Kumar & Suresh Singh, Advocates For the State : Mr Piyush Lall, JC to AAG 3 -------- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the intervener On the request of Mr Y.C.Verma, Senior. Advocate, CWJC No.16997 of 2008 in which he appears for the petitioner Nagendra Singh, has been heard together with the other two writ petitions. In fact, it is clear that the case of petitioner Nagendra Singh (CWJC No.16997/2008) is actually by way of intervention in the case of Lallu Paswan, one of the petitioners in CWJC No.15765 of 2008 because if relief is granted to Lallu Paswan and others then at least for some time Lallu Paswan will continue as Block Education Officer at Bodh Gaya where Nagendra Singh was earlier posted as Block Education Officer (the post itself appears to have been redesignated as Block Education Officer on 4.8.2008 but even 4 in subsequent orders and communications, many a times the post has been described by the designation Block Education Extension Officer) Bodh Gaya (West) and the said post itself has been transferred to Block Dobhi in Gaya district itself by an order dated 4.8.2008. The main issue falling for consideration in CWJC No.15765 and 16202 of 2008 is legality and correctness of a Government order dated 1.10.2008 issued by Principal Secretary of Cabinet Secretariat Department, Government of Bihar and addressed to the Principal Secretary/ Secretary, Human Resources Development Department. That communication mentions that after examination of certain orders of transfer issued by the concerned department, the State Government has found that some of the transfer orders are against rules/ norms governing transfers and hence, a decision has been taken to cancel those transfer orders. The Human Resources Development Department was directed to cancel those transfers and report compliance within a week. The enclosure to the letter dated 1.10.2008 mentions the various transfer orders bearing different Memo numbers which have been cancelled mainly after noticing that the routine transfers are required to be made only in the month of June as per Government resolution dated 1.3.2007 whereas by the different 5 orders, 500 employees of the department have been subjected to the transfer in the month of September 2008. On account of large number of transfers, the orders of transfers have been interfered with by presuming that they are not on account of promotion or for administrative reasons or in the interest of work. The total number of petitioners in CWJC No.15765 of 2008 is 7 and that in CWJC No.16202 of 2008 is 5. All of them along with some others totaling 137 officials belonging to Lower Subordinate Education Service were recently promoted to the post of Subordinate Education Service on 18.7.2008 and they had to be given suitable posting in that service on the post of Block Education Extension Officer/ Block Education Officer which was done by order dated 20.9.2008, contained in Memo no.1178 of that date. The transfer and posting of such 137 officials vide Memo no.1178 has also been cancelled by the impugned order dated 1.10.2008. The issue is whether the transfer and posting of such promoted officers is contrary to the resolution of the Government dated 1.3.2007 or not. It is not in dispute that cases of promotion are as an exception mentioned in the resolution dated 1.3.2007 and admitted in the impugned order itself. Only because of number of promotions being large i.e. 137, the State Government could not have treated such transfer 6 and posting to be contrary to the resolution dated 1.3.2007 and should not have cancelled such transfer and posting order on that account. Hence, this Court finds merit in the case of petitioners of CWJC No.15765 and 16202 of 2008. Since it has been held that orders of transfer contained in Memo No.1178 governing cases of promoted officers was wrongly cancelled by the State Government vide impugned order dated 1.10.2008, the petitioners succeed in their prayer. The said Government order dated 1.10.2008 as well as consequential orders issued by the Human Resources Development Department challenged in these writ petitions as well as orders relieving the concerned petitioners after they had joined pursuant to order dated 20.9.2008, are quashed. While giving the aforesaid findings and relief to the petitioners of CWJC No.15765 and 16202 of 2008 this Court has kept in mind the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner Nagendra Singh (CWJC No.16997/08). From the facts available in his case it is found that he came to suffer a transfer from the post of Block Education Extension Officer, Bodh Gaya (West), Gaya to same post at Dobhi, Gaya by an order contained in Memo No.1176 dated 20.9.2008. By the same very order of State Government dated 1.10.2008, order of transfer contained in Memo No.1176 dated 20.9.2008 has also 7 been cancelled on the same ground, noticed above, that they have been made in the month of September, contrary to Government’s resolution dated 1.3.2007. On behalf of newly added private respondent in this case, Lallu Paswan it was highlighted that although petitioner Nagendra Singh has been included in the transfer order dated 20.9.2008 contained in Memo No.1176 along with some others but in fact the post held by him stood transferred to Dobhi Block in the district of Gaya by virtue of Government decision dated 4.8.2008 (Annexure I/9) hence even without a specific transfer order in his name, petitioner Naendra Singh had to be posted at Dobhi Block on account of his post itself being transferred to that Block. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner Nagendra Singh has submitted that on the post of Block Education Extension Officer, Bodh Gaya (West) this petitioner had worked only for about one year and hence, his transfer from Gaya to Dobhi is contrary to the resolution of the State Government governing transfers and providing usual transfer only after three years and that also in the month of June only. In the peculiar facts noticed above, it is not possible for this Court to hold that petitioner Nagendra Singh 8 must continue on the post of Block Education Officer, Bodh Gaya (West) if that post itself has been transferred to Dobhi as demonstrated by the private respondent. In such circumstance, it is not possible to grant any relief to petitioner Nagendra Singh. However, it appears that he has filed a representation on account of his inconvenience. It goes without saying that such representation if still pending, will be given due consideration by the concerned authority in accordance with law. As a result, the two writ petitions bearing CWJC No.15765 and 16202 of 2008 are allowed and the writ petition bearing CWJC No.16997 of 2008 is dismissed. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. It is clarified that Lallu Paswan has been added as a private respondent in the case of Nagendra Singh (CWJC No.16997/08) on the request made by learned counsel for the petitioner Nagendra Singh. Before parting with this order it is necessary to make a clarification in view of findings of this Court that the promoted 137 officers have been legally transferred and posted in the month of September 2008 because their promotion matter was delayed on account of cases pending in Court and other compelling reasons. This Court is aware that under the general policy of the State Government governing transfers, 9 usual transfers are required to be made only when the employee has completed three years of service at a place and such transfers should be made only once in a year in the month of June. In such circumstances, the conflicting interest of the employees will have to be resolved by the department itself. This Court had stayed the impugned orders challenged in CWJC Nos.15765 and 16202 of 2008 and as a result, the petitioners are continuing at the transferred place where they claimed to have joined. On account of quashing of the order of the State Government challenged by these petitioners, they are entitled to continue at the transferred places where they were transferred and posted by order dated 20.9.2008. However, in order to accommodate the conflicting right of other officials who may have been unnecessarily transferred without completing the usual period of three years and specially for any compelling administrative reasons, the concerned department will have the liberty to review the place of posting of the promoted officials so that they are allowed to continue on the promoted post at suitable places with least disturbance to the rights of the other employees to continue on their post for usual period of three years. For this purpose, the department will have liberty to review the place of transfer and postings to a limited extent so as to cause least disturbance to the promoted 10 137 offices who have already undergone transfer in the month of September 2008. Only in the interest of work and for proper administrative reasons their place of posting may also be varied or changed as per compelling need. Let a copy of this order be given to learned AAG 9 for information and necessary action. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) sk