IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1169 of 2011 DR.RAVISHANKAR SON OF LATE NAGESHWAR PRASAD SHRIVASTAV RESIDENT OF VILL. SIKTA, P.S. SIKTA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE BIHAR, PATNA. 3. CIVIL SURGEON CUM CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, EAST CHAMPARAN. 4. DISTRICT OFFICER, EAST CHAMPARAN. 5. TREASURY OFFICER, EAST CHAMPARAN. 6. DR. RAJ KUMAR SINHA, INCHARGE MEDICAL OFFIER, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, RAXAUL/SUGAULI. ----------- 3 17/05/2011 After some argument learned counsel for the petitioner now has another grievance. The basic issue whether he has a right to be appointed as a drawing disbursing officer does not remain primary relief any more. Even otherwise this Court has serious reservation whether the petitioner has any constitutional or statutory right to remain or to be appointed as drawing and disbursing officer because these are routine administrative arrangements which is also reflected from Rule 148 of the Bihar Treasury Code, Volume I which reads as under : - 2 - “The head of an office may authorize any gazetted Government servant serving under him to sign a Bill or order for him, communicating the name and the specimen signature of the Government servant to the disbursing office concerned. This will not, however, relieve the head of the office, in any way, of his responsibility for the accuracy of the bill or for the disposal of the money received in payment.” Other contention of the learned counsel that he should be permitted to amend the writ application because of extraneous consideration, if not malafide, if allegations have been made which formed the basis for his transfer, then that order of transfer should also be interfered with. The prayer for amendment to the writ application cannot be permitted at this stage in view of the fact that the primary challenge in the present writ related to annexure-1 which is the order by which the drawing and disbursing officer power was conferred upon Dr. Raj Kumar Sinha (respondent no. 6). The transfer issue is yet another issue and is a separate cause of action for which this writ application may not suffice. This writ application is dismissed. If the - 3 - petitioner feels dissatisfied with his order of transfer, he may take another chance by filing another writ application on this issue. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)