PERMOD KOHLI, J. - (1.) PETITIONER is aggrieved of order No. 327 dated 11th September, 2006, repatriating him to his parent department i.e. Water Resources Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi. Petitioner, who is an Executive Engineer, was deputed to Panchayat Raj & National Rural Employment Programme (Special Division) Department (NREP) vide Notification No. 8976 dated 1st December, 2003 till further orders. He has been repatriated vide the impugned order to his parent department under the orders ' of the Joint Secretary to the Government, Panchayat Raj & National Rural Employment Programme (Special Division) Department and vide Memo No. 7841 dated 11th September, 2006 he has been asked to hand over the charge to one Surajman Sharma, Technical Advisor, Rural Development (Special Division), Dumka.
(2.) THIS order has been assailed on the ground that the same has not been issued with the approval of the Departmental Minister or the Chief Minister, It is also stated that normally the transfer of officers is effected only during the months of May, June, November and December on the recommendation of the Establishment Committee after the approval of the Departmental Minister and in other months with the approval of the Chief Minister. Order is also challenged on the ground of malafide, violation of statutory provisions and incompetency on the part of the issuing authority. On 20th September, 2006 when this matter was taken up, respondents were directed to file an affidavit and to show that the order impugned has been approved by the competent authority. It is stated that the petitioner was repatriated by the Principe Secretary, National Rural Employment Programme Department, purely on administrative reasons and post facto approval of the Departmental Minister was obtained on 9th November, 2006. It is further" mentioned that it is not a case of transfer but a case of sending back the employee to the parent department, Respondents have also tried to explain the reasons for delay in obtaining the approval which, inter alia, includes the political turmoil in the State during the month of September. 2006. It is also mentioned that there has been no violation of the statutory provisions nor the order is the result of any malafide. Respondents have also placed on record the official notings, which indicate that the repatriation of the petitioner was approved by the Minister concerned on 9th November, 2006.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioner that post factor approval does not rectify the illegality, so committed, It is also argued that similarly situated officers have been allowed to continue in the N.R.E.P. Department whereas the petitioner has been chosen to be repatriated.;