D. G. R. Patnaik, J. - (1.) - Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner has filed this review application, praying for review of the judgment dated 28-1-2009 passed by this Court in W. P. (S) No. 4335 of 2008.
(3.) The grounds on which the prayer for review has been made are as follows: (I) That this Court has failed to consider that the impugned order of petitioner's transfer is premature since he has not completed full tenure of posting at his present place. It appears from the statements made in para-18 of the original application, the petitioner has admitted that he was transferred from Hazaribagh to his present posting at Ranchi, by notification dated 30-6-2005. The impugned order of transfer from his present post at Ranchi, was made on 30-6-2008 apparently, after more than three years of his continued posting at Ranchi. This aspect of the matter was considered by this Court while passing the judgment under review. The petitioner has not pointed out any Rule of the Government whereby, the Government servants cannot be transferred even after three years of posting at a particular station. (II) The second ground raised by the petitioner is that this Court has failed to consider and appreciate that respondent No. 3 could not be transferred or accommodated in place of the petitioner as per the Agriculture Service Act, 1982 because the petitioner belongs to category-V whereas respondent No. 3 belongs to category-I and as both the categories deal with two different branches of the department and having speciality in different branches. they do not function beyond their specialised branch which is strictly barred under the Act. This aspect of the petitioner's pleadings has been taken into consideration by this Court while passing the judgment and review. This Court had expressed its views, confining its attention mainly to the propriety of the impugned order of the petitioner's transfer and had not found any impropriety in the same. Since the matter of transfer and posting of respondent No. 3, is entirely within the jurisdiction of the respondent authorities, this Court did not feel inclined to make any observation or record any finding of the propriety of the transfer and posting of the respondent No. 3, leaving the same to the concerned authorities of the respondents to consider and take appropriate action. (III) The third around raised by the petitioner is that this Court did not appreciate that the respondent No. 3, has already completed more than four years of service at his present place of posting and further that he was under suspension for serious defalcation of charges. This issue was also adverted to by this Court in the judgment under review and for the same reason as above mentioned, this Court did not feel inclined to pass any orders on the issue relating to continuance of the respondent No. 3 at Ranchi, since it was within the exclusive domain of the employer to consider his continuation at any particular station or his transfer to any other station. (IV) The fourth ground raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner has been transferred by the impugned order of transfer to a lower post despite the undertaking given by the State Government. as reflected in the previous High Court's orders, and despite the fact that they are under statutory obligation to grant regular promotion to the petitioner to the post of Deputy Director of Agriculture. Plant Protection with effect from 2003 as he is a senior most officer in the cadre of State of Jharkhand. This aspect of the petitioner's pleading was also considered by this Court in its judgment under review. In paras-5, 6 and 7 of the judgment, this Court had observed that the petitioner's substantive post is that the Assistant Director. Upon transferring from Hazaribagh to Ranchi, he was only allowed to officiate in the capacity of Deputy Director. Upon his shifting from Ranchi to Hazaribagh by the impugned order, his substantive post was not disturbed. This Court had also observed that upon considering the entire matter, "it did not find any illegality and infirmity in the order of transfer nor any such circumstance adverse to the petitioner's interest." (V) The next ground is that this Court has not taken into consideration the petitioner's specil-ic ground that the impugned order of petitioner's transfer was not passed by the Competent Authority. Counsel for the petitioner explains that the impugned order of the petitioner's transfer was passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Sugarcane Development. whereas the Rules stipulate that such order of transfer had to be passed by the Governor.;