NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing Notification No. 3885 (Bha) dated 30th December, 2006, as contained in Annexure -4, whereby the petitioner, who is an Assistant Engineer, has been transferred from Medical Building Sub -division No. 1, Bariatu, Ranchi to Building Sub -division, Chas (Bokaro) within a period of six months from the date of his earlier transfer and that too without any recommendation of the Establishment Committee. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the consequent transfer of Respondent No. 4, who has been transferred and posted in place of the petitioner without any recommendation of the Establishment Committee.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he has been subjected to unnecessary frequent transfer, as about six months ago, he was transferred and posted at Ranchi and from Ranchi, he is being now transferred to Bokaro within a period of six months. The petitioner has assailed the transfer order on the ground that the same is contrary to the policy decision of the Government governing transfer and posting of the government employees. Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the Government has framed rules/policy for the transfer and posting of the government employees and according to the said policy decision, the procedure has been prescribed for general transfer and posting of the employees. The general policy relating to transfer and posting is that the transfer should be normally made twice i.e. in the month of May -June and November -December of each year, provided that there may be deviation from the same in special circumstances e.g. illness, vacancy or in case of administrative exigency. It has been contended that the government employees cannot be transferred arbitrarily and at the whim of interested persons and the procedure prescribed must be followed, which includes recommendation of the Establishment Committee and approval of the departmental minister, but the prescribed procedure has not been followed in transferring the petitioner as well as Respondent No. 4 and no reason has been assigned for giving a go -bye to the said policy decision.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel referred to the decision of Patna High Court in the case of Shyam Kumar Prasad v. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1995(1) PLJR 69, in which it has been held that the order of transfer made without placing the matter before the Establishment Committee and following prescribed procedure is liable to be quashed. Similar view was also taken by the said High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Pandey v. MThe State of Bihar and Ors. and its analogous cases, reported in 2001 (3) PLJR -711 and also by this Court in L.P.A. No. 154 of 2002 (Shyam Das Singh v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.) vide order dated 11th April, 2002. It has been contended that when there is a policy decision, the same is to be followed and deviation from the prescribed procedure is arbitrary and not sustainable in law. Learned Counsel further submitted that no exigency/reason has been shown for disturbing the petitioner within a period of six months and justifying the impugned transfer order(s).;