Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the State.
(2.) THE petitioner has been transferred by the impugned notification bearing no. 2095 dated 27th June 27th June 2014 issued by the Rural Works Department, Government of Jharkhand, whereunder he has been transferred from his present place of posting at Works Sub Division, Giridih -I Giridih and posted as Assistant Engineer, NREP, Hazaribagh within one and half year of the previous transfer order vide notification dated 29th December 2012 and the Respondent No. 5 has been placed at his place. Learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order of transfer, has fairly submitted that the present transfer is a chain transfer of course and by the same notification, several other persons have been transferred from one place to another. It is also submitted that such transfer has been made in the month of June itself. However, serious objection has been made to such exercise being undertaken within a period of one and half year of the petitioner's posting, though ordinarily under the resolution of 25th October 1980, duration of posting on any post and at any particular place will generally be for three years. Learned Senior counsel submits that if the transfer is made before the normal expected tenure, respondent must show any reason of administrative exigency for undertaking such a transfer. It is submitted that the respondents are indulging in a bulk transfer even before completion of normal tenure of the officers and the present case being an example of one such transfer. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment rendered in the case of B. Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka and others [ : (1986) 4 SCC 131 and para -6 thereof and submitted that though, the power and jurisdiction of the respondent to transfer an employee is not in question, but such a frequent transfer without any justifiable administrative reason, should be inquired into and the respondent should be asked to explain the reason for undertaking the same. Learned Senior Counsel has also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Uttam Kujur vs. State of Jharkhand & others [ : 2008(4) JCR 306 (Jhr) and submitted that even in case of premature transfer, such premature transfer has also been interfered on an earlier occasion by this Court. Therefore, respondent should be called upon to explain the reasons for undertaking such transfer.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State has submitted that the impugned order of transfer is a chain transfer involving several officers of the Rural Works Department and the same has been undertaken during the period May -June which is permitted as per the Circular dated 25th October 1980. It is further submitted that though, a normal tenure of an employee is generally for a period of three years, as per the said Circular, but in case of administrative exigency, such transfer can be undertaken even before completion of such tenure. Therefore, the petitioner having been transferred from Giridih to Hazaribagh, cannot have any occasion to complain. Therefore, the impugned order of transfer should not be interfered as it being a chain transfer, it may have cascading effect.;