IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.627 of 2011 PARMA NAND CHOUDHARY, S/O LATE RAMAPATI CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF SASTRI NAGAR, P.O. RAMANA, P.S.-MITHANPUR, DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR. .PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE, DIRECTORATE, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE, DIRECTORATE, SINCHAI BHAWAN, PATNA. …RESPONDENT. ----------- 3. 19.04.2011 By Annexure-2 dated 22.10.2008, petitioner was posted as Superintendent, Juvenile Home, Patna. Subsequently, by another office order dated 2.3.2009 contained in Annexure-3, he was made In-charge of Special Home Patna, instead of the Juvenile Home. However, it was mentioned in the order that he will remain In-charge of Juvenile Home also. Thereafter, by order dated 30.6.2010 as contained in Annexure-4 petitioner was made In-charge of Observation Home, Patna. Finally, by the impugned order as contained in Annexure-5 dated 27.12.2010 petitioner has been transferred and posted as Superintendent of Observation Home, Chapra. He challenges this order on the ground that he had been frequently transferred and order has been issued in violation of the Guidelines. As noticed above, since 22.10.2008 petitioner has remained in Patna in one capacity or the other. It is only by the impugned order that his station of posting is being - 2 - changed. Therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that there is gross violation of the Guidelines does not find favour by this Court. It is settled law that every violation of the Guidelines cannot make the order illegal so as fit to be interfered by this Court unless substantive prejudice is caused to the incumbent by the order. In the counter affidavit it has been disclosed that in Patna observation Home and Special Home are running in one building and few inmates are in both the homes and therefore there is hardly any utility of two superintendents whereas, there is no superintendents in Chapra due to shortage of hands. As such, taking into consideration the administrative necessity, petitioner has been transferred there. Thus, this court finds good reasons as disclosed in the counter affidavit for transfer of petitioner to Chapra. In the circumstances this Court does not find any merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed. Devendra/ (J. N. Singh, J.)