IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10880 of 2011 Purushottam Singh S/o Baikunth Singh R/o behind Bank of India, Cant Road, PO & PS- Khagaul, Distt- Patna presently posted Araria Forest Division, Araria----------------Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through its Secretary, Depatt. Of Forest & Environment Govt. of Bihar. 2. The principal Chief Conservator of Forest Patna, Govt. of Bihar 3. The Range Officer, Forbisganj Forest Range, Araria Forest Division, Araria-------------------Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Verma, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Meeta Sinha, Advocate For the State: Mr. R.R. Tiwari, AC to AAG-12 --------------------------- 6 22.9.2011 Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. By notification issued on 20th June, 2011 petitioner who was waiting for posting was transferred and posted at Forbisganj in the district of Araria. It is his case that he went and gave his joining on 30th June 2011. However by yet another notification issued on 30th June, 2011 itself petitioner with many other persons were given yet another set of posting, in which petitioner’s name figured at serial no. 22. He has been shifted from Forbisganj to Purnea. Petitioner has filed this writ petition alleging that he cannot be moved around from one place of positing to another in such a quick succession. This kind of action violates the rule of transfer and posting of a government employee as he is expected to get at least three years in a station. There is even insinuation that the shifting of petitioner from the place of posting based on annexure-2 was to accommodate one Jitendra Kumar Singh for extraneous consideration rather than any exigency of service or administration. There have been many rounds of exchange of pleadings. 2 One thing which emerges from the stand taken by the respondent State is that when the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest was away on leave the officiating Principal Chief Conservator of Forest took some hurried decision in his absence. When he returned from leave he was apprised of the said decision and he came to a considered opinion that the matter required to be re-looked at from many angles. The earlier notification contained in annexure-2 was undone and a fresh order of transfer and posting came to be issued in terms of annexure- 1. Another reason given by way of explanation for shifting the petitioner to another place is that departmentally an important forestation scheme is being carried out in the Forbisganj region and it was on the verge of completion and the administration came to a considered opinion that any change of person at this juncture could be detrimental to the timely completion of the project as such. Learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner thereafter submits that Jitendra Kumar Singh is being accommodated for other reasons. Jitendera Kumar Singh does not carry good reputation and there are materials to show that his service record is not totally clean as such. If the respondents are serious about the completion of the project in a phased and timely fresh and quest manner they should post a person who was senior or more experienced than said Jitendera Kumar Singh. In fact, Jitendra Kumar Singh is not before this Court. Therefore the Court would not like to comment on any of the assertions made against him as it will violate principles of natural justice and any observation of the High Court with regard to him may 3 be uncalled for. One thing which emerges from the record is that the petitioner was waiting for posting. Obviously the second senior in command took advantage of the absence of senior knowing full well that June is the month for effecting transfers and hurriedly issued notification contained in annexure-2. No sooner the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest returned from leave and learnt when all these facts brought about it he exercised his wisdom and posted people afresh in terms of annexure-1. Merely because petitioner hurriedly went and joined the place of posting in terms of annexure-2 on 30th June, 2011 it does not mean that petitioner had already settled down in the post and had started shouldering his responsibility. Joining of the petitioner is a precondition before he could start working. On the date of joining itself petitioner had been shifted in terms of annexure-1. Therefore to that extent it cannot be said that the petitioner had settled down lock, stock, barrel and asking him to move from Araria to Purnea would cause undue hardship. In fact, the geographical location of the two districts does not convince this Court that shifting of the petitioner from Araria to Purnea is going to be very prejudicial to his interest unless the petitioner has special liking for Forbisganj as such. In matters of transfer unless it is established that it is in complete breach of relevant rule or for mala fide the Courts are supposed to be loath in exercising its discretion by interfering in the same. From the materials brought on record the Court is convinced that there were circumstances in existence for the notification to be issued in terms of annexures 1 in the background to 4 the way annexure 2 was issued. Since annexure-1 has been issued by the senior most functionary of the department and the reason for doing so has been explained, the decision cannot be labeled as far fetched or irrational. Court is not inclined to allow the petitioner to continue or remain on the post on the basis of the notification contained in annexure-2. In fact, in the opinion of the Court the petitioner has been given superior place of posting with better responsibility in terms of annexure-1. No interference is required with the order in the above stated circumstances. This writ petition along with Interlocutory Application No. 5937 of 2011 stand dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)