IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14030 of 2008 SRI KANT PD.SINGH @ SREEKANT PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr Tara Kant Jha, Sr.Advocate with Mr Amish Kumar, Advocate For the State : JC to AAG III For Respondent no.7 : Mr Chitranjan Sinha, Sr.Advocate Mr Prashant Sinha, Advocate --------- 2. 16.09.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State as also the learned Counsel for the private respondent no. 7. Transfer is a normal incidence of service and is the exclusive domain of the employer. But when the employer resorts to arbitrary exercise of this power the Court has to step in. The petitioner was transferred to Munger on 30.6.2008. The order required him to assume charge at the new place by 10.7.2008 failing which he will be deemed to have been unilaterally relieved. The petitioner joined at Munger. Soon thereafter followed the impugned order dated 2.9.208 annulling the transfer. The reason ascribed in the impugned order is the representation received from certain employees. Petitioner is not one of them. Transfer within a period of three months, unless there be exceptional compelling circumstances for the same is itself reflective of arbitrariness without further more. The order dated 2.9.2008 manifests its arbitrariness when it discloses no exceptional or special circumstances. The petitioner is stated to be a resident of Munger, in the last year of his service, due for superannuation on 31.7.2009. Reliance is placed on a government circular for preferably last posting in the home district as per choice. Learned Counsel for respondent no. 7 submits that he was also transferred by virtue of the order dated 30.6.2008 to Purnea from Munger. That has also been cancelled by the impugned order dated 2.9.2008 and he continues at Munger where the petitioner is now claiming to come back. It is the petitioner who has come with a cause of action and not respondent no. 7. If arbitrariness is manifest in the action of the State respondents, it is for them to find the solution. What would happen to respondent no. 7 is not the concern of the Court when he has not come forward with a cause of action. The impugned order dated 2.9.2008 and the consequential order dated 3.9.2008 are quashed. The administrative liberty of the respondents with regard to transfer and posting remains unfettered to be exercised in accordance with its own circulars and guidelines framed in this regard and deviation only to the extent being permissible. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)