Anirudha Kumar vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.—The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:

For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Notification No. 1/Estt. 03-1014/08-2688, Ranchi dated 30.6.2008, issued by Under Secretary to the Government, whereby and whereunder the petitioner who was working as In-charge Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Division, Hazaribagh has been transferred to the post of Technical Advisor of Superintending Engineer, Gumla. within a period of 6 months and without recommendation of the Establishment Committee.

For quashing the Notification No. 1/Estt. 03-1014/08-2682, Ranchi, dated 30.6.2008, issued by Under Secretary to the Government whereby and whereunder the respondent No. 4 has been transferred from Chaibasa. Drinking Water and Sanitation Circle Chaibasa to Hazaribagh.

The fact in brief, as stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is set out as under:

The petitioner was duly selected on the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 1988 and, accordingly joined the Public Health and Engineering Department of the then State of Bihar and thereafter posted at Ranchi in the Regional Chief Engineer''s Office at Ranchi. Later he was promoted as Executive Engineer and posted at Drinking Water and Sanitation Division. Giridih-II.

Thereafter, vide notification No. l/T 01-1003/2007 dated 28.6.2007, issued by the Under Secretary to the Government, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department. Jharkhand, petitioner was transferred to Ranchi Urban Circle, as Technical Advisor to Superintending Engineer and he joined that post and was performing his duty to the best satisfaction of all concerned. The petitioner further submits that after 6 months the petitioner was again transferred from Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Ranchi Urban Circle, to Drinking Water and Sanitation Department. Hazaribagh vide Notification No. 1/T 01 1011/07-5956. dated 31.12.2007.

The petitioner again joined the transferred place at Hazaribagh and was performing his duty when the third transfer order was issued vide Notification No. 1/Estt. 03-1014/08-2688 dated 30.6.2008, whereby, the petitioner was transferred from Drinking Water and Sanitation Division, Hazaribagh to Gumla as Technical Advisor to Superintending Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Circle.

It has been submitted that vide same Notification dated 30.6.2008, which is sought to be challenged in this writ petition, one Sri K.K. Verma, respondent No. 4 herein, was transferred from Chalbasa as Technical Advisor to Superintending Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Circle, Chalbasa to Hazaribagh as the successor of the petitioner. It has also been stated that vide Notification No. 1/T 01-1011/07-5957, dated 31.12.2007. which is marked as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, said Sri K.K. Verma, respondent No. 4 herein, was transferred from Hazaribagh by the Establishment Committee as the said respondent No. 4 had completed his tenure on the said post in defiance of all the Rules and Procedures and policies of the Government.

The petitioner further submits that vide Resolution dated 25th October, 1980 issued by the then State of Bihar, it had been specifically provided that the duration of posting on any post and at any particular place will generally be for a period of 3 years and for some posts and places the period of posting can be kept for 2 years which should be specified by the department by standing orders.

The aforesaid Notification also provides that an Establishment Committee will be formed in each Department with the approval of the Minister and only after recommendation of the said Establishment Committee and the approval of the Minister the transfer can be given effect to.

The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the Circular dated 25th October, 1980 has been violated on both counts for the sole reason that the petitioner was transferred within a period of 6 months from his place of posting and also the name of the petitioner was neither placed for consideration nor recommended by the Establishment Committee which is wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unfair.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon several judgments passed by Patna High Court, Jharkhand High Court and the Hon''ble Supreme Court which has been dealt with in detail in the connected identical matter in W.P. (S) No. 3676 of 2008.

Learned Counsel for the State has submitted that the transfer of the petitioner was in consonance with the circular of 1980 and even otherwise the same was directory and not mandatory, as has been held in a catena of decision. It has also been stated at paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit that the Departmental Establishment Committee in its meeting held on 7.6.2008 considered the matter relating to transfer of the Engineers in Drinking Water and Sanitation Department and thereafter, recommendation of the Departmental Establishment Committee was placed before the Minister-in-charge for transfer and the Minister included the name of the petitioner for transfer from Hazaribagh to Gumla on the post of Technical Advisor to Superintending Engineer, Gumla on administrative ground and due to exigencies of work.

Mr. Suhail Anwar, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 4, as also Mr. Pradeep Modi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, submitted that pursuant to the'' impugned notification dated 30.6.2008, respondent No. 4 relinquished his charge and joined the transferred post on 11.7.2008 itself. Thus the order of transfer has been given effect to pursuant to the Notification dated 30.6.2008.

The respondent-State in the counter affidavit has specifically stated that in the instant case the transfer has been given effect to and the same was done in the better administration and exigency of service. Under Rule 22(5) of the Rules of Executive Business the recommendation of the Department Establishment Committee is to be approved by the Minister-in-Charge and at the time of approval of the recommendation, the Minister is competent to include/exclude the names in the list recommended by the Establishment Committee and only thereafter, the list is approved by the Minister-in-Charge and it becomes final. Thus, in the instant case the required procedure was even otherwise followed and only thereafter, the notification for transfer was issued. Specific case has also been made out by the State that the transfer was for administrative reasons due to exigency of work because of the dereliction of duties and complaints against the petitioner herein and the work was actually suffering.

In the aforesaid background it appears that the petitioner was negligent in performing his duties because of which the department''s work was suffering and various complaints were received and memos were issued against the petitioner which was the reason assigned for transfer.

In the connected identical matter bearing Writ Petition (S) No. 3676 of 2008 (Sheonath Singh Gonjhu v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.), a detail reasoned order has been passed considering the entire facts and circumstances and the settled law applicable in matters of transfer/posting on administrative grounds and exigency of work. The aforesaid judgment is reiterated and is referred to and relied upon in this case for disposal.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the settled law, this writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.