IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8863 of 2010 GUNJESHWAR SINGH S/O RAM SWAROOP SINGH R/O VILL.- AURAHI, P.S. BABUBARHI, DISTT.- MADHUBANI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY PRIMARY AND ADULT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT TEACHERS APPOINTMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY MADHUBANI 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHUBANI 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT EDUCATION OFFICER, MADHUBANI 5. THE BLOCK EXTENTION EDUCATION OFFICER BABUBARHI, MADHUBANI 6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ BHATCHAURA, BABUBARHI, MADHUBANI 7. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ BHATCHAURA, BABUBARHI, MADHUBANI 8. SMT. RINKI KUMARI, PANCHAYAT TEACHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, AURAHI, BABUBARHI, MADHUBANI ----------- 02. 01.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is aggrieved because of the so-called order of transfer passed against him in Annexure-5. He wants quashing of this order on the ground that the order of transfer has been passed by a person who is not competent to do so and that the petitioner is being transferred for extraneous considerations because at a point of time he had made a grievance for non-payment of the pay-scale of a trained teacher. He also insinuates that this is being done at the behest of respondent no.8 and to accommodate her on the place of posting of the present petitioner and in that background the order of transfer is required to be interfered with, if not quashed. Admitted position is that petitioner was appointed as a 2 Shiksha Mitra in a Primary School and later on in terms of 2006 Rules was permanently absorbed. He started working and on the basis of a so- called order issued by the Mukhiya he was transferred to a Middle School or got accommodated in the Middle School on the basis of such an order. The original place where the petitioner was selected and appointed is Primary School, Aurahi, which again is not in dispute as such. State has filed counter affidavit and have explained the circumstances under which Annexure-5 has come to be issued. They have categorically taken a stand that since there was no power of transfer, given or vested in a Mukhiya, he cannot transfer a teacher of Primary School to a Middle School and order of first transfer per say is illegal. After this fact was brought to the notice of the authority, Annexure-5 came to be passed. No amount of legal jugglery will help the petitioner to remain on the post which he is presently occupying. What the authority have done is to put the petitioner and the respondent no.8 in their respective schools where they have been initially appointed. Since the Mukhiya has no power to transfer a teacher of Primary School to a Middle School, therefore, the consequences thereof now cannot be challenged, in the manner in which the petitioner is trying to do. The Court after hearing the parties is of the considered opinion that there is no mechanism where a Shiksha Mitra or a person appointed as a Primary Teacher could be accommodated on transfer in 3 a Middle School. There are separate set of rules in this regard which will govern the service conditions and postings of teachers of a Middle School and there cannot be any lateral and vertical transfer of a kind from Primary School to Middle School. Obviously, petitioner was accommodated on transfer from Primary School to Middle School by the Mukhiya and that does not give him legal right to hang on to the posting. It is not a case of transfer which is being effected in violation of the rules laid down by the State Government but correction of an illegality committed earlier by an elected representative. In the circumstances, no interference is warranted in the present writ application. It is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)