NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order No. 16 dated 15.1.2007 (Annexure -5), whereby the petitioner 'stransfer has been sought to be stayed after the order of transfer was implemented and the petitioner joined at the transferred place. It has been stated that the petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer at Lapung in Regional Engineering Organization, Khunti Division, Ranchi and after completion of three years, he was transferred and posted as Junior Engineer at Karra, whereas respondent No. 6, Kaushal Kumar, who was posted as Junior Engineer at Karra and has also completed three years, has been transferred from Karra to Lapung. The petitioner was relieved from Lapung and joined at the place vacated by respondent No. 6 at Karra and his joining was accepted by the Executive Engineer, R.E.O., Khunti Division by his letter No. 1 dated 2.1.2007. It has been stated that the process of the transfer was complete by joining the petitioner at the transferred place but, in the meanwhile, another notification was issued vide letter No. 16 dated 15.1.2007, whereby the petitioner has been asked to remain at Lapung and the respondent No. 6 has also been asked to remain at Karra.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that since the petitioner had already joined his transferred place at Karra, there is no question of his remaining at Lapung and the impugned order is wholly redundant. The respondent No. 6, who has been transferred and relieved from Karra, also cannot remain at Karra as his transfer order has also taken effect after his joining at Lapung. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to and relied on a decision in the case of Dr. Ramchandra Safi V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2000 (3) PLJR 139, in order to fortify his stand. Learned Counsel further relied on another decision in the case of Smt. Jyotsna Kumari V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2000 (2) PLJR 332, wherein, it has been held that the transfer once acted upon, there is no question of stay of such transfer. Learned Counsel further referred to an order of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1553 of 2006 (Amarnath Arvind Kumar Diwakar V/s. State of Jharkhand and Ors.) in which it has been held that challenge of transfer order after joining the person, so transferred, is a highhandedness on the part of the officers and the action is wholly malafide. The Chief Secretary, in that order, has been directed to see that in future such type of illegality may not be repeated.
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State -respondent stating, inter alia, that there is no malafide on the part of the respondents and that inconvenience of respondent No. 6 has been considered on his representation that he has been studying at Ranchi and as such he has been allowed to remain at the same place at Karra and there is no other consideration and arbitrariness.;