IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16382 of 2008 SATYENDRA RAY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv. Rajeev Kr. Singh, Adv. Rakesh Kr. Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Rajesh Lal, J.C. to A.A.G.-3. For Resp. No.3. : Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Adv. ----------- 5/ 09/01/2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for respondent No.9. The petitioner and respondent No.9 were transferred on 30.6.2008 from Jamui to Sonpur and from Sonpur to Muzaffarpur respectively. They both joined their respective new posts. Thereafter the State Government issued orders dated 1.10.2008 and 16.10.2008 annulling/cancelling the orders of transfer dated 30.6.2008. In consequence thereof on 3.10.2008 the respondent No.3 was transferred back to Sonpur while no fresh orders for posting of the petitioner was passed. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Rajendra Prasad Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioner urged that the order of transfer dated 30.6.2008, once issued and acted upon by joining, the transaction became complete. The order of transfer thereafter became redundant and was a spent force. The occasion to reconsider the very same order and annul or cancel it 2 simply does not arise. He relies upon two Bench decisions of this Court reported in 2000(2) P.L.J.R. 332 (Smt. Jyotsna Kumari vs. State of Bihar and others) and 2000(3) P.L.J.R. 139 ( Mahmood Azam Siddique & anr. vs. The State of Bihar & ors.) following which this Court in C.W.J.C. No.16215/08 had set aside the similar orders of transfer of the same date i.e. 30.6.2008. Learned counsel Shri Ashok Singh appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 submitted that in pursuance of the cancellation of the order dated 30.6.2008, by orders dated 1.10.2008, the respondent No.3 has been posted afresh on 3.10.2008. Learned counsel for the State has also made similar submissions to the effect that defects in the orders of transfer having been detected have been cancelled/annulled. The contention of the State of defects in the earlier order of transfer necessitating annulment/cancellation was a defence also raised in the latter judgement of this Court as noticed above and negatived. In the present case, the order dated 3.10.2008 is the consequence and corollary of an order dated 1.10.2008. If the order of annulment/cancellation dated 3 1.10.2008 is a nullity in law, the fresh order dated 3.10.2008 automatically collapses. The administrative grievance of respondent No.3 that in the meantime someone else has been posted at Muzaffarpur and, therefore, he shall be left virtually without a posting, is a matter to be considered by the State in its administrative efficiency interest. Quite obviously, respondent No.3 cannot be allowed to suffer for the same in any manner if the State has acted contrary to the laws already laid down by this Court years ago in a similar situation. The order dated 3.10.2008 is accordingly set aside insofar as it seeks to dislodge the petitioner who shall be entitled to continue at his posting in terms of the order dated 30.6.2008 which cannot be interfered with by the respondent State in exercise of their administrative powers except in accordance with law. The writ application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)