IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2447 of 2009 AMBIKA PRASAD SINGH, aged about53 years, Son of Late Ram Jatan Singh, Assistant Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Sub- Division, Siwan, District Siwan …….. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Additional Secretary, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna …….. Respondents ----------- 04- 25.3.2009 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the date of Annexure-1 on page 2 of the writ petition. 2. Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh for the petitioner, and Mr. P K Verma, learned Addl. Advocate General XI. This writ petition is directed against Sl.no.37 of the notification dated 3.10.2008, issued by the Government of Bihar in the Rural Works Department, whereby the petitioner has been retransferred to the same place within a period of three months. Learned Govt. Counsel has supported the impugned action. 3. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer, NREP, Siwan. By order dated 30.6.2008, he was transferred from the said position to that of Assistant Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Sub-Division, Siwan. The petitioner joined his new posting on 14.8.2008. This has been followed by the impugned order, whereby the petitioner’s transfer has been cancelled and he has been re-posted as Assistant Engineer, NREP, Siwan. The petitioner raises a grievance before this Court that he has been retransferred within three months to his inconvenience. He had - 2 - already taken over charge of his new assignment. He relies on the order dated 9.1.2009 (Annexure 4), passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 16382 of 2008 (Satyendra Ray v.State of Bihar & Ors.), whereby this Court has set aside a comparable order of retransfer. 4. Learned AAG submits on instruction that complaints were received about various defects in the said order of transfer of 30.6.2008 (Annexure 2) leading to a detailed scrutiny of the enture order, whereby as many as 216 persons had been transferred. He further submits that 40 defects were noticed and have been rectified by the impugned order. The petitioner’s retransfer was one of them. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioner was initially transferred from one post in Siwan to another post in Siwan itself. He joined after lapse of six weeks. Six weeks thereafter he was retransferred to the same post in Siwan. We, therefore, do not see any reason for inconvenience to the petitioner by the impugned order of transfer. His station has not changed. If such objection were permitted, the State Government will find it impossible to function and will not be in a position to run its administrative affairs. It is evident that the petitioner was re-transferred to rectify the mistakes in the earlier transfer order with respect to 40 persons in view of the instructions contained in letter no.3268, dated 1.10.2008, issued by the Cabinet Secretariat Department, Govt. of Bihar. The impugned order can not, therefore, be faulted. The writ petition is also - 3 - hit by delay. The impugned order was passed on 3.10.2008, and the writ petition has been lodged in this Court on 19.2.2009. It is indeed a frivolous writ petition burdening this Court with a most unwanted matter. 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) mrl