Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner in 2nd round of litigation on the issue of his transfer to Industrial Training Institute, Simdega on the post of Instructor vide impugned notification dated 29.6.2015 has also challenged the rejection of his representation through reasoned order dated 29.7.2015, Annexure -5 of the present writ petition on the ground that no consideration was accorded to the observation made by this Court in Judgment dated 20.7.2015 passed in his previous writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2946 of 2015, Annexure -1.
(2.) Petitioner was transferred to Industrial Training Institute (Welfare), Ranchi where he joined on 2.2.2015 after remaining for 8 years at ITI, Daltonganj since August, 2006. It was alleged that within 5 months thereafter vide notification dated 29.6.2015, he was transferred to Industrial Training Institute, Simdega. Petitioner alleged discrimination and cited example of one Shashi Bhushan Paswan, who was transferred vide order dated 31.12.2014 from I.T.I. (Welfare), Ranchi to I.T.I., Dhanbad, but was relieved on 22.6.2015 only and by the same notification of 29.6.2015 had once again been brought to I.T.I. (Welfare), Ranchi within 8 days of his relieving. The respondents had indicated in the earlier writ petition that transfer of the petitioner and several others were undertaken to post suitable Instructors having adequate experience at four new Industrial Training Institutes which were to commence session from August, 2015. Petitioner was, therefore, transferred to I.T.I., Simdega, which is adjacent to his home district, Gumla. This court, after noticing the stand of the parties, was not inclined to interfere in the impugned order of transfer, however directed the competent authority under the respondent -Department of Labour Training and Employment to take a considered decision on the pending representation of the petitioner within a period of two weeks. It was also observed that till such decision is taken order of transfer dated 29.6.2015 be not given effect to, vide judgment dated 20.7.2015, Annexure -1.
(3.) While considering the grievances raised in the instant writ petition, this Court was not satisfied so far as the stand of the respondent vis -a -vis the other employee was concerned as the respondents did not indicate any special reasons for making distinction in the case of the said person. Therefore, the matter was adjourned on the previous date to enable the State Counsel to seek instruction from the respondent for reconsideration of the matter.;