SRI ABDUL MUTTALIB Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order of transfer of the petitioner from the post of Block Development Officer, Mairwa (Siwan) to the post of Block Development Officer, Ekma (Saran) has been challenged in this writ application on the ground that the petitioner has been transferred not on account of administrative exigencies but at the instance of a Member of Legislative Assembly (hereinafter called M.L.A.) to accommodate respondent No. 4, who, on transfer of the petitioner is to join the post in question. According to the petitioner, he was transferred from the district of Munger to the post of Block Development Officer, Mairwa by a Government notification dated 9 -5.1984. The petitioner joined the said post on 17.5.1984. The petitioner had hardly completed two months when an order dated 17.7.1984 of the State Government was issued transferring respondent No. 4 to the post which the petitioner was holding without issuing any order of transfer in respect of the petitioner. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 24.8 -1984 was issued transferring the petitioner from Mairwa to Ekma. In support of the assertion that the transfer of the petitioner has been engineered by the local M.L.A., the petitioner has stated in detail as to how at the instance of said M.L.A., the previous Block Development Officer Shri Zoha was transferred. When Mr. Zone relinquished the office at Mairwa in the month of December 1983 the M.L.A. addressed a latter dated 5.1.1984 to the then Chief Minister Bihar saying that Sri Zoha had been transferred from Mairwa at his instance and against that post Sri Chandramauli Mishra (respondent No. 4) be posted. A copy of that letter had been annexed to the writ application The petitioner has stated on affidavit that in view of the aforesaid letter and pursuit by the local M.L.A. respondent No. 4 was transferred from Ekma Block to Mairwa Block which necessitated the transfer of the petitioner from Mairwa Block only three months after his joining the said post. In this connection, the petitioner has annexed a letter dated 30.8.1984 addressed by the District Magistrate, Siwan to the State Government saying that the petitioner had hardly continued for about 4 months and has been transferred although there was no complaint against him. He requested the State Government to stay the order of transfer.

(2.) This Court while directing the learned Advocate General, who appeared on behalf of the State, to seek instructions, passed an order for maintenance of status quo. In the meantime respondent No. 4 has appeared. As the writ application relates to an order of transfer the parties were heard in detail at the stage of admission and with consent of all it is being disposed of at this stage.

(3.) Normally, this Court does not interfere with an order of transfer, because the State Government has ample power to transfer an officer from one place to another for administrative reasons. The State Government has fixed ordinarily a period of three years of posting of an officer. It has also prescribed a procedure for transfer of officers on the recommendation of the Establishment Committee concerned. But, even without observing those conditions if a transfer has been made taking into account any administrative exigency, the transfer order shall not become Ipso facto null and void. In the case of Man Singh v/s. State of Bihar and others ( : 1982 BBCJ 392) this Court has examined the aforesaid aspect in detail. But the question is as to whether an officer can challenge an order of transfer on the ground that it has been made for extraneous consideration at the instance of a person who is no where in the administrative hierarchy