- (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs: (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), Order(s) and/or direction(s), particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing notification Nos. 4539 and 4540 dated 31.12.200B, so far as it relates to petitioner and respondent No.4, (Annexure -2) by which the petitioner has been transferred from the post of In -charge Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Division, Ramgarh to the post of Technical Advisor to the Superintending Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Circle, Ranchi and private respondent No.4 has been posted in place of petitioner, without any recommendation of Establishment Committee nor any result has been assigned for premature transfer of the petitioner either administrative or else and that too within a short span of six months, only at the instance of Departmental Minister In -charge. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) and/or direction(s), particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the said notifications vide Nos. 4539 and 4540 dated 31.12.2008 as contained in Annexure -2. (iii) For a direction upon the respondents to produce before the Hon'ble Court the records of the Establishment for perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are set out as under: - The petitioner was In -charge Executive Engineer in Drinking Water and Sanitation Division, Government of Jharkhand. On 30.6.2008 the petitioner was transferred vide notification no. 2676 from Drinking Water and Sanitation Sub -Division, Gonda, Ranchi and posted as In -charge Executive Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Division, Ramgarh. The petitioner joined on the transferred post on 28.7.2008 and worked satisfactorily. Within a short span of six months in violaticm of Government Circular/Resolution dated 25.10.1980 and without any administrative reason or without any recommendation of the Establishment Committee, the petitioner was transferred and private respondent no. 4 was posted in his place. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the premature transfer within a period of six months was illegal and arbitrary. It has also been contended that transfer was not recommended by the Establishment Committee constituted for the purpose and in fact the same was in violation of Circular/ Resolution dated 25.10.1980.
(3.) THE respondents in their counter affidavit and also by the submissions through their learned counsel have stated that the transfer was made after the approval of the competent authority and the Circular/Resolution dated 25.10.1980 was directory and not mandatory. It has also been contended that as per Clause 22(5) of the Rules of Executive Business the Minister In -charge is the final authority to approve the recommendation of the Establishment Committee and the transfer was made admittedly after the approval of the Minister In -charge.;