KESHARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner seeks quasing of an order of transfer dated 31st December, 1989 (Ann exure-2, Serial No. 42). The petitioner by the aforesaid order has been transferred from Veterinary Hospital, Aurangabad, to Tekuna, Gaya, as Manager Bull Rearing Farm, which is assailed as being violative of the Government policy envisaged in Anncxure-3. It is alleged that the petitioner has been transferred within six months of the previous posting, even though under the Government policy, the duration of posting on any post at any particular place is generally for a period of three years. It is said that the transfer of the petitioner is in the nature of punishment. By a supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has challenged his order of transfer also on another ground, the ground being that in view of the ensuing legislative Assembly elections 1989-90, he ought not to have been transferred in view of the ban on transfer impposed by the Election Commission vide letter No. 434/89, dated 26th July, 1989 (Annexure-5). It is said that pursuant to the said ban, the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, communicated to all Departmental Heads that they should forbear from transferring officers, who are directly connected with the conduct of election till completion of the election (Annexure-6), Reliance has also been placed on the communication of the Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar, Sri S. Bhatnagar, dated 20th October, 1989 (Annexure-7), by which all transfers of persons of any rank associated with election work in any capacity and any extent has been banned forthwith. Our attention has also been drawn to the wireless message (Annexure-8) to the Chief Electoral Officers of different States, by which Election Commission's letter dated 26th July, 1989, is stated to have been re-imposed. It is, therefore, contended that the transfer of the petitioner dated 31st December, 1989 (Annexure-2) is in the teeth of the ban of the Election Commission and thus violative of Article 324(1) of the Constitution of INdia.

(2.) THE petitioner is stated to have filed a representation on 5.1.1990 to the Additional Secretary, Government of Bihar, Animal Husbandary Department, on receipt of the order of transfer, but the authorities are paying no heed to it, nor have the authorities disposed of the said representation.

(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner that he is protected by the communication of the Election Commission and that of the Chief Secretary is entirely misconceived. The petitioner has nowhere stated that he is directly connected with the conduct of election beyond a bald statement that the Animal Husbandry Department is not immune from rendering service to the District Magistrate if the letter requisitions the services of the Veterinary doctors for any election duty Learned Counsel, on our query, stated that the petitioner was not connected with the conduct of last Parliamentary Election. It is, therefore, manifest that the petitioner is not directly connected with the conduct of election and is, therefore, not entitled to any protection under the communication referred to above. The point urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this connection is rejected. We, however, express no opinion as to the legality validity and operativeness of the communication of the Election Commission, the Chief Secretary and/or the Electoral Officer (Annexures 5, 6, 7 and 8).